Wish he had gone both broader and deeper. First of all, he addressed a disproportionate number of cases in which he himself was personally involved. That's a bit suspect, if you'll pardon the pun. Secondly, while he does get into some interesting details about the cases themselves, he doesn't always use those details to further the larger discussion—why are these cases "fundamental"? Not only how did they change our nation, but what do they say about the nation, both as it was and as it is today?
I would much sooner recommend Lawrence Friedman's series of lectures entitled "The American Legal Experience"—it does a better job with a similar goal.