On the Supreme Court places the Supreme Court in a rich historical and political context, demonstrating how its interpretations of statutes and the Constitution are necessarily shared with the elected branches, the 50 states, and the general public. It explains why the Court exercises judicial review, not judicial supremacy. It demonstrates that, contrary to popular opinion, the Court does not supply the final or exclusive word on the Constitution. As with other branches, it is capable of making errorssometimes quite major ones. A number of clear and interesting examples are marshaled to show how the Court at times recognizes its errors and reverses itself, or reverses itself under pressure from the elected branches, as with child labor legislation. Moreover, the book reveals that the Court has rarely been a reliable guardian of individual freedoms and minority rights. Often, Congress has been the better protector, with specific examples analyzed. In an era of tectonic changes, On the Supreme Court offers a fresh perspective on this mainstay institution from a scholar with unique insights as a Constitutional specialist as well as a Congressional researcher.