Mark V. Tushnet

Formed around three articles by the authors about First Amendment protection for instrumental music, art (visual/performance), and nonsense, the book explores why the protection of these things at once seems so obvious to modern constitutional scholars and the Supreme Court but also is so difficult to defend using conventional First Amendment theories without a bunch of special pleading. Ultimately, the best answer seems to be that these things are socially understood to be speech—but that implies that the categories of “speech” might plausibly change to include (or perhaps exclude?) new things, such as dance or cuisine. The core claim of the book is that “[a]sking the easy questions can be surprisingly disturbing, because it reveals that the First Amendment’s foundations are less settled than we might suppose or want.” And the book does a good job of showing why the easy questions aren’t that easy.… (mer)

Overall - a great analysis and look at the most significant dissenting decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. Was a great spring board for me to be inspired to explore further some of the backdrops/periods/characters involved in or surrounding many of the opinions.

I enjoyed Tushnet's analysis of the dissenting decisions and their historical/societal implications much more than reading the opinions themselves - which can go on and on and on. But what would I expect - these are opinions written by Supreme Court Justices!

Recommended - espec for Supreme Court nerds.… (mer)