Jan Greenburg : A Legal Communicator For The Abc News
827 Words4 Pages
Jan Greenburg is a Legal Communicator for the ABC news. In this book she tells explains about nine different interviews she has had with high political leaders. The leaders range from Justices to the white house. This book basically takes the outside and inside view of how the court has changed over time. Court has changed over time with mainly communal problems such as: faith, ethnicity and illegal processes. Jan talks about how some of the court has basically used itself to gain power through these communal problems. This is really useful when it comes down to it, because it lets the reader realize that the court does not always give proper justice. There are numerous conflicts in the Supreme Court. People always want power, and some…show more content… Jan has sided with bush’s decisions and downed other presidents in this book. I also did not like that Jan gave an ideal feeling of each of the judges, and stuck with that for the entire book. Bush and Regan help set up the Supreme Court nominees. These two presidents basically had the ruling over who got picked. Was this even fair to be done so? I think not because the Supreme Court is a very big deal, and it shouldn’t just be the presidents ruling over who the nominees are. Bush did make good choices for Nominees, but overall lacked on making good choices about other things. President make decisions based on other things that Jan the writer may have not known at the time. The burden of reshaping the Supreme Court would be placed on Bush’s administration and his GOP majority in the senate (Greenburg 33). After this she states that the supreme courts future was about to begin. Now just because it rested mainly in their hands does not mean that bush was arguably making a bigger change than the other presidents. She dies speak of how Bush and his administration were so slow with reacting to the terror of hurricane Katrina in the chapter “Trust Me”. I think Jan has not really focused on the conflicts, and the struggle for power, but more on what it feels like to sit in court, or be part of it. The book seems more based on what of might have happened if some decisions were not made. For example when she speaks of the abortion discussion of Roe V.