“Supreme Courtship: A Novel,” by Christopher Buckley

“Supreme Courtship: A Novel,” by Christopher Buckley (New York: Twelve / Hachette Book Group; 2008), 285 pages.

American political institutions have been previously satirized by Christopher Buckley in Thank You For Smoking (political lobbying), Florence of Arabia (diplomacy), and Boomsday (Social Security). In Supreme Courtship, Christopher Buckley satirizes the method of appointing justices to the United States Supreme Court.

Buckley mocks the difficulties sitting Presidents face when nominating a person to the Supreme Court. The stumbling block is the body that can either confirm or not confirm the President’s nomination, the United States Senate Judiciary Committee. In Supreme Courtship, the President of the United States unsuccessfully nominated two successive candidates for one vacant seat on the court. The chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who asked the President to appoint him to the open seat on the Supreme Court, blocked both appointments for entirely spurious or bogus reasons. The President was so angry at the Senate committee for rejecting his perfectly capable nominees that he decided to chose as his third nominee the star of a reality television courtroom show. Naturally, his advisers try to convince him against making such a nomination but the President would not be deterred. The television judge, somewhat reminiscent of Judge Judy, is vivacious, feisty, outspoken and blunt, and not above being convinced by the President to be a nominee to a position she considers herself unqualified to hold. To the horror of Washington insiders (except the President) and to the delight of the public, the President’s third nominee (the television judge) is nominated for the vacant court position, and thereby made subject to confirmations hearings, all while keeping down her day job of being a television star. The Senate Committee is outraged, as is the nominee’s television producer husband who thinks her obligations to fulfill her television contract are more important than being placed on the Supreme Court. From this premise, the story unfolds in two parts; the humorous preparation for the hearings and the actual confirmation hearings, and second, after her confirmation, her actions as a Supreme Court judge during three important decisions, the most important being one that decides the result of a presidential election.

Buckley again succeeds in satirizing America’s political institutions. His method this time is to highlight the juxtaposition between the snobbish, elitist, east-coast educated Washington insiders and the populist, plainspoken vivacious television star of the people, a person who didn’t want to be a Supreme Court judge, who admits that she’s not qualified for the job, but accepts the nomination because the President asked her. Nonetheless, there are a few aspects of this book that some readers may find objectionable. For example, there is some profanity, but not of such frequency to make it all that memorable. There is some implied adultery or fornication that is neither explicit, nor essential to the story. In fact, it could be argued that the entire sub-plot consisting of the romantic relationship between two characters was only included to enable the author to use a play on words in the title. Without this contrived relationship, there would be no courtship to enable the book to be titled Supreme Courtship.

Putting these quibbles aside, the strength of this book’s humor is that it plays to the average American’s distain for Washington D.C. and Washington D.C. insiders. Buckley mocks the Supreme Court justices (who try to one-up each other in their use of Latin legal terms), the hypocrisy of Congressmen who speak of their years of “public service” but really mean “self service.” He also mocks the Washington D.C. establishment’s distain for non-elites that refuse to ingratiate themselves with these insiders, the sort of people that didn’t go to the right college, have memberships of the right club, and live in what is now pejoratively called “flyover country,” the vast expanse of the United States that rests between the two coasts. Despite this stinging rebuke of the American ruling class, Buckley is optimistic about America, average American’s, and the resilience of the institutions of American government. To Buckley, these institutions are so resilient and American people so full of good sense, that, in his view, even a vivacious, feisty and blunt television judge can be placed next to the clowns running one of the highest institutions in the country and against the prevailing wisdom of all, except the general public, do a good job and make the right decisions when it really counts. Who could not enjoy a story such as this?

"That’d be Right: A Fairly True History of Modern Australia," by William McInnes

"That’d be Right: A Fairly True History of Modern Australia," by William McInnes, (Sydney: Hachette Australia;  2008), 320 pages.


That’d be Right by William McInnes is labeled as “a fairly true history of Australia”, a history viewed through the author’s eyes, with a particular emphasis on sport and politics. The author approaches Australian “history” through recollection, primarily his recollections of various sporting and political events, and what he was doing when those events occurred in Australia from the 1970s through to today. McInnes narrates a series of loosely related political and sporting stories. The only relationship or connection that these political and sporting stories have with each other is the author. He connects them via a chain of recollections, observation and anecdotes, that are at time humorous, to attempt to add color and interest to what many people would ordinarily be a rather thin gruel of politics and sport. For example, he recalls his family and friends’ activities during some of the events of his youth (the 1975 Australian Federal election), a famous cricket match (the 1977 Centenary Test), events he watched was in college in the 1980’s (political rallies and other sporting matches/races) through to political and sporting events and cultural events he attended as a spouse and father.

McInnes should be lauded for writing about sport and politics from the vantage point as an interested opinionated outsider, and the impact and influence of these events on people’s lives. Many books about sport and politics are written from the vantage point of the privileged insider (journalists), participants (politician or sportsman), or historians. McInnes’s departure is that he writes about these events that span a period of at least 35 years from his perspective, while liberally garnishing it with side stories and anecdotes, much in the same way that made his earlier book such an enjoyable read. The effect is to produce humorous insights, emotional events and sentimental recollections of people’s lives during momentous events in Australia’s recent past. Unfortunately, the attempt at a so-called “fairly true history of Australia” (which may just be a marketing ploy) comes across, at times, as half-baked. At times it reads as a quickly cobbled together collection of stories loosely woven around a theme of sport and politics in a way to cash in as a follow-up to his superior first book.

McInnes is a fine storyteller and should be applauded for memorializing his recollections; however, given that McInnes places himself in the center of events (and his recollection of events) in this book, it is surprising that we know so little of our author. He comes across as somewhat two dimensional. Apparently McInnes is a well regarded actor, and has had some success on both the stage and screen (both movie and television). This success is alluded to but never addressed; it’s as though it’s assumed or taken for granted that if you read William McInnes’s books, you know who he is, and of his acting career. Many readers do not, and may even wonder aloud when reading this book, who this author is and why his views are important enough to read, if at all? Maybe it’s modesty that keeps McInnes from writing about his career achievements in his chosen profession. Or maybe it’s a wish for privacy, or a male preference to discuss manly things like politics and sport. It seems odd though that in a book about essentially about his recollections of major sporting and political events of the past 35 years that he fails to tell the reader about his rise from struggling acting student in Western Australia to established and accomplished stage, film and television actor.

Despite these minor quibbles, McInnes has written a fine book that should resonate with every lover of good, fresh stories based on the observations and conversations of ordinary suburban people. The only thing that this book lacks is the story of McInnes’s career. No doubt he could have enhanced this book with the details of how he became an expert in his chosen profession. No doubt it would be a story worth telling, and when told by McInnes, be entertaining and a useful guide as well as an account of lessons he learned in establishing himself in a most competitive profession. I suspect that he is leaving those stories for another book. Let’s hope he takes the time to writes it one, because if it is like this book, and his previous book, it would be a humorous and enjoyable read.