For the first time, a collection of dissents from the most famous Supreme Court cases

If American history can truly be traced through the majority decisions in landmark Supreme Court cases, then what about the dissenting opinions? In issues of race, gender, privacy, workers’ rights, and more, would advances have been impeded or failures rectified if the dissenting opinions were in fact the majority opinions?

In offering thirteen famous dissents—from Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. Board of Education to Griswold v. Connecticut and Lawrence v. Texas, each edited with the judges’ eloquence preserved—renowned Supreme Court scholar Mark Tushnet reminds us that court decisions are not pronouncements issued by the utterly objective, they are in fact political statements from highly intelligent but partisan people. Tushnet introduces readers to the very concept of dissent in the courts and then provides useful context for each case, filling in gaps in the Court’s history and providing an overview of the issues at stake. After each case, he considers the impact the dissenting opinion would have had, if it had been the majority decision.

Lively and accessible, I Dissent offers a radically fresh view of the judiciary in a collection that is essential reading for anyone interested in American history.

"An important reminder that strong challenges have been made to the best and worst in American constitutional development and that responsibility for the best lies as much in the citizenry as Supreme Court justices.” —Mark A. Graber, author of Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil

馬剋·圖什內特，美國哈佛大學法學院教授，曾任教於威斯康辛大學與喬治城大學。研究領域為美國憲政理論，憲政史、比較憲法等。主要著作包括Out of Range: Why the Constitution Can't End the Battle over Guns (2007). A Court Divided: The Rehnquist Court and the Future of Constitutional Law (2005). The New Constitutional Order (2003), Taking the Constitution Away From the Courts (1999), Red, White, and Blue: A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Law (1988)等。