Scholars have long studied executive-legislative relations in the US system of checks and balances and have paid little attention to the friction between legislatures and courts, yet these struggles are important. Legislators may be swept away by "civic populism," loudly scapegoating the unpopular and embracing simplified panaceas to complex problems. Courts must protect the civil liberties of the unpopular and enforce limits on the public will. The authors view this perennial conflict through the lens of a case study. In 2000, the New Hampshire House of Representatives made David Brock only the seventh chief justice ever to be impeached. The charges included exercising improper influence over cases and perjury. But the real reasons ran deeper. Brock had presided over a series of unpopular decisions involving school finance. More generally, the branches disagreed over how independent courts should be. Conflicts over powers and limits always lurk below the surface of US politics and became public during Brock's trial in the state senate. He was acquitted, but efforts to restore interbranch comity went on long afterward. The authors make this interesting story into a useful introduction to institutional state politics.

Summing Up: Highly recommended. Upper-division undergraduates through faculty. * CHOICE * Unlike many efforts to characterize the sometimes-caustic interplay between unelected judges and elected politicians, which reveal authors' biases and predilections, Cerullo and Steelman assiduously seek throughout the narrative to fairly reflect the facts and to objectively frame the competing arguments as they emerge over time. . . . The narrative's value as an historical account is enhanced by its portrayal of the eventual changing dynamic of interbranch relations, culminating in the softening of embedded political culture of mutual contempt and intransigence. Acknowledging the extreme polarity that divides us as a nation, as a world, we might take pause and follow the trail New Hampshire painfully blazed. * International Journal for Court Administration * The authors are well-qualified to undertake this study, and their doing so is a contribution to the understanding of our state courts and their history, as this book provides an account of things which should be remembered and understood by New Hampshire citizens, especially its attorneys and judges. . . . This is a good book, and a thorough resource about a critical time in New Hampshire history which an increasing number of bar members did not experience. . . this is a valuable book, and should be required reading by all attorneys and especially all judges, who need to understand the historic and political context in which we work. * New Hampshire Bar News * The Impeachment of Chief Justice David Brock: Judicial Independence and Civic Populism tackles a fascinating but little known political drama. The authors do an admirable job of presenting an evenhanded analysis of what was a highly contentious effort to remove the chief justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Although the events recounted occurred almost two decades ago, the attention now given to politics in the states and to questions surrounding the independence of the judicial branch make the lessons offered by this study timely. This book will be of interest to political scientists focused on judicial politics, legislative studies and American state politics, historians concerned with modern American politics, and legal scholars. -- Peverill Squire, University of Missouri Harry Truman liked to say, 'The only thing new in the world is the history you don't know.' This is especially true in the realm of impeachment, where the focus has too often been on the use of that mechanism at the federal level. This book helps to correct that mistake. It examines a state judicial impeachment, which the authors should be commended for making better known and provides an excellent reminder of the ways in which States are as important, if not more important, than the federal government, in protecting judicial independence. -- Michael Gerhardt, University of North Carolina School of Law