{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0231058570660935, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0037614185921547557, 'mean_word_length': 4.764705882352941, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
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

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 implications for the criminal justice system in the future.