" Rosen emphasizes the difference between doctrinaire judges who try to impose their personal legal philosophy on the court and those who try to build consensus on the court, coming down firmly on the side of those judges who compromise their views for the sake of majority or unanimous decisions. He picks out pairs of justices whose personalities and philosophies contrast in a way that seems suspiciously contrived, as if they acted as they did to satisfy Rosen's thesis. It's almost as if Rosen is demonstrating what is wrong with imposing personal belief on the court by doing it in his book. Strange. If you can get over this contrivance (or better yet, ignore it) it's still a well written and entertaining book, particularly if you are unfamiliar with some of the more colorful characters in Supreme Court history. "
— Thomas, 1/17/2014