Now a New York Times Best Seller and a National Book Award finalist. Charged with racial, sexual, and political overtones, the confirmation of Clarence Thomas as a Supreme Court justice was one of the most divisive spectacles the country has ever seen. Anita Hill's accusation of sexual harassment by Thomas, and the attacks on her that were part of his high-placed supporters' rebuttal, both shocked the nation and split it into two camps. One believed Hill was lying, the other believed that the man who ultimately took his place on the Supreme Court had committed perjury. In this brilliant, often shocking book, Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson, two of the nation's top investigative journalists examine all aspects of this controversial case. They interview witnesses that the Judiciary Committee chose not to call, and present documents never before made public. They detail the personal and professional pasts of both Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill and lay bare a campaign of lobbying, public rela

Winner of the Pulitzer Prize in history and a landmark in the study of constitutional origins, Leonard Levy’s now-classic study appears for the first time in paperback. Origins probes the intentions of the framers of the Fifth Amendment and emphasizes their belief that in a society based upon respect for the individual, it is more important that the accused not unwillingly contribute to his conviction than that the guilty be punished. "A work of monumental scholarship―broad in scope, thorough, carefully annotated, accurate, and imaginative."―Political Science Quarterly. "Vastly learned...everywhere critical and reflective...written in a style at once lucid and vigorous. All in all, it is quite clearly one of the important contributions to historical literature."―Henry Steele Commager. "A matchless contribution to our understanding of the historical background underlying the adoption of a major provision of the Bill of Rights."―American Political Science Review. "A masterful job."―Oscar Handlin.

Americans rank crime among the most urgent of social concerns. Overflowing prisons and public outcry have led many to propose that the criminal justice system could control crime more effectively by focusing on dangerous offenders. Recent social studies have suggested that serious criminality is highly concentrated and that high-rate offenders can be distinguished from others on the basis of prior criminal conduct, drug abuse, and employment record. Such studies urge judges to shift from rehabilitative sentencing to selective incapacitation, with longer prison sentences for convicted criminals who are deemed unusually dangerous. In response to these recommendations, some prosecutors' offices have established career criminal units designed to assure that repeat offenders will be prosecuted to the full measure of the law. Some police departments are experimenting with "perpetrator-oriented patrols" targeted on suspected high-rate offenders. The authors of this major book in criminal jurisprudence describe and analyze the intellectual and social challenge posed to public officials by this new thrust in criminal justice policy. They develop a framework for evaluating policies that focus on dangerous offenders. They first examine the general issues that arise as society considers the benefits and risks of concentrating on a particular category of criminals. They then outline how that approach might work at each stage of the criminal justice system--sentencing, pretrial detention, prosecution, and investigation. This cogently argued book provides much needed guidance on the crucial questions of whether sharpened attention to dangerous offenders is just, whether such a policy can be effective in managing the problem of crime, which applications seem particularly valuable, what the long-term risks to social institutions are, and what uncertainties must be monitored and resolved as the policy evolves.

Documenting a prominent jurist's efforts, a collection of case studies examines his successes with Vietnam veteran exposure to Agent Orange, asbestos, and DES and repetitive stress syndrome, describes current legal attitudes, and recommends compassionate alternatives.

No detailed description available for "Congress v. the Supreme Court".

In Confirmation Wars, Benjamin Wittes examines the degradation of the judicial nominations process over the past fifty years. Drawing on years of reporting on judicial nominations, including numerous interviews with nominees and sitting judges, he explains how the process has changed and how these changes threaten the independence of the courts. Getting beyond the partisan blame game that dominates most discussion of nominations, he argues that the process has changed as an institutional response by Congress to modern judicial power and urges basic reforms to better insulate the judiciary from the nastiness of contemporary politics.