Book Review Essay: Nine Scorpions in a Bottle: A Review and Synthesis of Four Titles Related to an In-depth Examination of the U.S. Supreme Court

• Date: 01 March 2010
• Published date: 01 March 2010
• DOI: 10.1177/0734016809332098
• Subject Matter: Articles

Book Review Essay

Criminal Justice Review

35(1) 107–114

© 2010 Georgia State University

Research Foundation, Inc.

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734016809332098

http://cjr.sagepub.com

Nine Scorpions in a Bottle:

A Review and Synthesis of

FourTitles Related to an

In-depth Examination of the

U.S. Supreme Court

Robert M.Worley and Vidisha Barua1

While public opinion polls have long shown that the U.S. Supreme Court is one of the most

respected and revered institutions, it has nevertheless had its share of controversies. In this

review essay, four scholarly works were examined. While each book was original and unique, all

four had similar themes. Perhaps one of the most important themes that resonated throughout the

books is the notion that currently and throughout the Court’s history, the justices who have

graced the bench have differed considerably in regard to judicial philosophy, temperament, and

personality. As Jan Crawford Greenburg (2007) reminds us in her book, Supreme Conflict, even

the justices themselves are acutely aware of this. In illustrating this point, she explains rather

poignantly that it was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who once described the Court as “nine

scorpions in a bottle” (p. 295).

The above quote underscores the importance of collegiality.After reading all four books, it is

apparent that the ability for justices to play nice cannot be overstated. A justice can be a brilliant

legal scholar, but if he or she ostracizes colleagues, this could render that justice ineffective. In

many respects, the recent Bush administration was well aware of the importance of collegiality

and went out of its way to nominate two justices who could build alliances and coalitions. All

four books indicate that this effort was by and large successful. The two most recent justices,

John Roberts and Samuel Alito, may very well have the social skills and charisma necessary to

unite the Court. It will be argued toward the end of this essay that this may have important impli-

cations for the criminal justice system in the future.

The Importance of Collegiality

While all four books acknowledge the importance of collegiality, Jeffrey Rosen (2007) devotes

the most considerable amount of discussion to this topic. First, Rosen eloquently provides a defi-

nition of what he refers to as judicial temperament. This, he contends, “involves a judge’s

willingness to factor in the Court’s institutional role, to suppress his or her ideological agenda or

desire for personal attention in the interest of achieving consensus and stability” (p. 7). Through-

out the text, Rosen presents various justices who demonstrate an excellent ability to interact with

others as compared to those who clearly do not have this ability. For example, he devotes an

entire chapter comparing the temperament of Justice Antonin Scalia to the late Chief Justice

William Rehnquist. Though both Scalia and Rehnquist were more often than not conservative

allies, Rehnquist made much more of an effort to find a common ground between the right and

the left. In his book, The Nine, Toobin (2007) also recognizes this and cites Rehnquist’s role in

1Pennsylvania State University, Altoona, PA, USA

1