Sorcerers' Apprentices

Artemus Ward is assistant professor of political science at Northern Illinois University, and author of Deciding To Leave: The Politics of Retirement from the U.S. Supreme Court.David L. Weiden is assistant professor of politics and government and director of the legal studies program at Illinois State University.

• IllustrationsAcknowledgments Preface: Awesome Responsibility and Complete Subservience 1 Introduction: The Institutionalization of the Supreme Court Law Clerk 2 A Great Ordeal: Selecting Supreme Court Law Clerks 3 The Junior Court: Deciding to Decide 4 Decision Making: Mission-Inspired Crusaders? 5 Opinion Writing: From Research Assistants to Junior Justices 6 Conclusion: Sorcerers' Apprentices Appendix A. "Memorandum for the Law Clerks" from the Chambers of Chief Justice Earl Warren Appendix B. Letter from Stephen G. Breyer to Earl Warren, October 6, 1963 Appendix C. Letter from John Minor Wisdom to Hugo Black, October 15, 1965 Appendix D. Justice Harry A. Blackmun's Talking Points for Interviewing Prospective Law Clerks Appendix E. Memorandum from Molly McUsic to Harry A. Blackmun, re: Certiorari Petition,Planned Parenthood v. Casey, January 4, 1992 Appendix F. Memorandum from Stephanie A.Dangel to Harry A. Blackmun, June 26, 1992 Appendix G. United States Supreme CourtLaw Clerk Questionnaire Notes BibliographyIndex About the Authors

The main quibble . . . with contemporary law clerks is that they wield too much influence over their justices opinion-writing. Artemus and Weiden broaden this concern to the clerks influence on the thinking of the justices about how to decide cases. (Slate.com) Helps illuminate the inner workings of an institution that is still largely shrouded in mystery. (The Wall Street Journal Online) Provides excellent insight into the inner workings of the Supreme Court, how it selects cases for review, what pressures are brought to bear on the justices, and how the final opinions are produced. Recommended for all academic libraries. (Library Journal) Ward and Weiden have produced that rare book that is both a meticulous piece of scholarship and a good read. The authors have . . . sifted through a varied and voluminous amount of archival material, winnowing out the chaff and leaving the excellent wheat for our consumption. They marry this extensive archival research with original survey data, using both to great effect. (Law and Politics Book Review) Well-written, needed, and nicely done. (Choice)