The Least Dangerous Branch? Consequences of Judicial Activism
» Read Now
by Stephen P. Powers, Stanley Rothman.
222 pgs.
Is the American judiciary still the "least dangerous branch," as Alexander Hamilton and legal scholar Alexander Bickel characterized it? Powers and Rothman explore the impact of the federal courts, providing a brief account of the development of constitutional law and an overview of the judiciary's...
Is the American judiciary still the "least dangerous branch," as Alexander Hamilton and legal scholar Alexander Bickel characterized it? Powers and Rothman explore the impact of the federal courts, providing a brief account of the development of constitutional law and an overview of the judiciary's impact in six controversial areas of public policy.
Overruling Democracy: The Supreme Court vs. the American People
» Read Now
by Jamin B. Raskin.
290 pgs.
The current five-vote majority on the Supreme Court may be the most divisive, anti-democratic court in American history. No one expects the justices to be a-political, but to say that there is 'no Constitutional right to vote' as they did in Bush v. Gore, is to go against everything America stands...
The current five-vote majority on the Supreme Court may be the most divisive, anti-democratic court in American history. No one expects the justices to be a-political, but to say that there is 'no Constitutional right to vote' as they did in Bush v. Gore, is to go against everything America stands for. Overruling Democracy disputes the majority's awful rulings on third parties, race, high schools and corporations.
The Activist Advocate: Policy Making in State Supreme Courts
» Read Now
by Charles S. Lopeman.
129 pgs.
Lopeman examines the impact that advocacy of intentional judicial activism by a justice of a state supreme court can have on establishing the court as a policy maker. He examines the "attitudinal" model and the "judicial role" model of decision making and concludes that, while the attitudinal model...
Lopeman examines the impact that advocacy of intentional judicial activism by a justice of a state supreme court can have on establishing the court as a policy maker. He examines the "attitudinal" model and the "judicial role" model of decision making and concludes that, while the attitudinal model might describe the decision-making process in the U.S. Supreme Court, the judicial role model better describes decision making in state supreme courts. This judicial role model allows the activist to transform a court into a policy maker.
Truman's Court: A Study in Judicial Restraint (Chap. One "Judicial Restraint versus Judicial Activism")
» Read Now
by Frances Howell Rudko.
168 pgs.
"A concise, well-written examination by a lawyer-historian of the judicial restraint philosophies of President Truman's four appointees to the Supreme Court: Harold Burton, Fred Vinson, Tom Clark, and Sherman Minton. Rudko's analysis of the four men's opinions in criminal procedure...
"A concise, well-written examination by a lawyer-historian of the judicial restraint philosophies of President Truman's four appointees to the Supreme Court: Harold Burton, Fred Vinson, Tom Clark, and Sherman Minton. Rudko's analysis of the four men's opinions in criminal procedure, loyalty-security, racial discrimination, and alien rights cases show that Truman was far more successful than most presidents in choosing justices whose view of the judicial role matched his own." Choice