To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzes reviews to verify trustworthiness.
This is a pricey volume (my copy was about $40) though the number of "opinions" and academic audience probably makes it relatively fair in price. The book after all amounts to the length of two average length works and academic works shorter in length can be as or more pricey.
The idea here (with two academic introduction chapters) is to re-write twenty-five US Supreme Court opinions (mostly after 1965) in a feminist fashion. This is part of a trend -- e.g., there is a collection of alternative opinions for Brown v. Bd. and Roe v. Wade, both worthwhile reads. I found this set more disappointing though as a whole it was okay. Each opinion has a brief introduction written by someone else (for some reason) and these on the whole were tiresome. I use the word vaguely for a reason -- tiresome in various ways, such as not very helpful, tediously written etc.
Some of the opinions were a tad redundant -- the Planned Parenthood v. Casey opinion amounted to a thinly re-written version of Justice Blackmun's concurrence. The inclusion of an opinion originally written by Ruth Bader Ginsburg also seemed a silly choice given there are numerous opinions that one could include instead. The legal reasoning of some were somewhat dubious or conclusionary. Note the conceit was that they were supposed to use cases and other source material available at the time of the original opinions. Thus, e.g., the broad argument in this version of Griswold came off a tad anachronistic. A few were pretty interesting but only a few were really good (such as the draft case).
Net, I was disappointed, but since there was so much here, it was okay. OTOH, I wouldn't suggest spending $40 for this sort of thing.
The concept alone gets 5 stars – more people should understand and recognize how different our national law could have been (and could be) had the Supreme Court been populated with justices of greater diversity. The execution was a little uneven, as one might expect from a compilation of 52 authors. But many of the opinions are well worth reading, especially the brilliant reworks of Bradwell (a tour de force on the expansive potential of the 14th Amendment, never realized because of fear of black equality), Roe (how different the law would be had Roe been decided based on women’s equality rather than privacy), and Harris v. McRae (finding the federal outlawing of Medicaid funding for abortions is a violation of the Constitutional clause against establishment of religion). The book stands as proof that our law has great potential for social justice – and that great potential has, time and again, been suppressed by the Court and its homogenous justices. But it is also a lesson in what could have been – and what could still be.