The Least Dangerous Branch by Alexander Bickel

I picked up this book because it was allegedly a very influential book to Chief Justice Roberts. The book is apparently legendary in legal circles, and I did find it very interesting, but I confess that I only made it about 2/3 of the way through the book. I'll take another swing at the book in a few years, perhaps, but I found that there was a little too much legal history and terminology that I didn't know to be able to fully appreciate his arguments. Much of the early part of the book discussed the role of the Supreme Court and how it has developed throughout US history, together with different interpretations of what that role should be. This history was very interesting, and I imagine would have been even more so if I knew the referenced cases better. What I found most interesting was Bickel's apparent conviction that the Supreme Court must exercise great restraint -- that often the best decision the Supreme Court can render is no decision at all. I find a lot of wisdom in these remarks, and it's something I struggle with personally a great deal. Sometimes it really is the best course to do nothing at all. And Bickel argues (again, as I understand him) that for the Supreme Court, this is often by far the best course -- to do nothing but nudge the legislature to deal with the issues at hand rather than relegating them to the courts. And sometimes even the legislature simply needs time for society as a whole to catch up to cultural changes that are clearly in the winds.

Do nothing. Very hard advice to sell -- who profits from that?