• How Rights Went Wrong

  • Why Our Obsession with Rights Is Tearing America Apart
  • By: Jamal Greene
  • Narrated by: Ryan Vincent Anderson
  • Length: 11 hrs and 7 mins
  • 4.6 out of 5 stars (56 ratings)

1 title per month from Audible’s entire catalog of best sellers, and new releases.
Access a growing selection of included Audible Originals, audiobooks and podcasts.
You will get an email reminder before your trial ends.
Your Premium Plus plan is $14.95 a month after 30 day trial. Cancel anytime.
Buy for $31.93

Buy for $31.93

Pay using card ending in
By confirming your purchase, you agree to Audible's Conditions of Use and Amazon's Privacy Notice. Taxes where applicable.

Publisher's Summary

An eminent constitutional scholar reveals how the explosion of rights is dividing America, and shows how we can build a better system of justice.

You have the right to remain silent and the right to free speech. The right to worship, and to doubt. The right to be free from discrimination, and to hate. The right to marry and to divorce; to have children and to terminate a pregnancy. The right to life, and the right to own a gun.

Rights are a sacred part of American identity. Yet they were an afterthought for the Framers, and early American courts rarely enforced them. Only as a result of the racial strife that exploded during the Civil War—and a series of resulting missteps by the Supreme Court—did rights gain such outsized power. The result is a system of legal absolutism that distorts our law and debases our politics. Over and again, courts have treated rights conflicts as zero-sum games in which awarding rights to one side means denying rights to others. As eminent legal scholar Jamal Greene shows in How Rights Went Wrong, we need to recouple rights with justice—before they tear society apart.

©2021 Jamal Greene (P)2021 HarperCollins Publishers

What listeners say about How Rights Went Wrong

Average Customer Ratings
Overall
  • 4.5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 Stars
    42
  • 4 Stars
    9
  • 3 Stars
    4
  • 2 Stars
    0
  • 1 Stars
    1
Performance
  • 4.5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 Stars
    44
  • 4 Stars
    6
  • 3 Stars
    4
  • 2 Stars
    0
  • 1 Stars
    0
Story
  • 4.5 out of 5 stars
  • 5 Stars
    37
  • 4 Stars
    11
  • 3 Stars
    4
  • 2 Stars
    1
  • 1 Stars
    1

Reviews - Please select the tabs below to change the source of reviews.

Sort by:
Filter by:
  • Overall
    1 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Story
    1 out of 5 stars

Garbage

Naive perspective that sees rights as a contest between conservative and progressive perspectives. It makes poor generalizations about both and speaks about it as if there’s some sort of alternative use for the courts in the debate. The premise is stupid.

  • Overall
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Story
    5 out of 5 stars

Excellent & Thought Provoking

This is a must read for all who are interested in the law and its application.

  • Overall
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Story
    5 out of 5 stars

Trenchant and valuable

In "How Rights Went Wrong," Jamal Greene offers a critique of American "rights obsession" and suggests that, rather than a few "strong" rights that trump all others, our courts, and our society as a whole, should recognize many more competing rights that must be balanced to serve the requirements of justice. I think he makes a compelling case.

  • Overall
    3 out of 5 stars
  • Performance
    5 out of 5 stars
  • Story
    2 out of 5 stars

A compelling read but an unconvincing thesis.

Greene writes a compelling narrative, and his thesis is provocative and important. The further one delves into the book, though, the clearer it is that that thesis has collapsed under its own weight. On the one hand, Greene seems to treat “constitutional” as synonymous with “dignifying” or “worthy.” That something be “constitutional” is thus a moral imperative. On the other hand, by treating “constitutional” interpretation as nothing more than a matter of weighing societal values, it is difficult to see the benefit of a “constitution” at all. Perhaps more pressingly, the insistence against drawing bright constitutional lines results in an argument that rests on vague prescriptions (“Courts ought to wrestle with facts!”) and question-begging, extra-textual moralisms (“It is absurd that the Constitution protects X but not Y.”) that are of little help to a court wrestling with a difficult question. We are left with “rights” that are simultaneously everything and nothing, and little real guidance in defining where those rights end and begin.