Judicial Politics in Polarized Times
Regular price
€29.99
A01=Thomas M. Keck
abortion
affirmative action
affordable care act
Author_Thomas M. Keck
bush
Category=LNAA1
clinton
congress
decision making
democracy
dissent
elections
eq_isMigrated=1
eq_nobargain
gay rights
gun control
judges
judicial decisions
justice
law
legal
litigation
neutrality
obama
opinions
partisanship
party lines
polarization
politicians
public opinion
republican
ruling
supreme court
voters
Product details
- ISBN 9780226182414
- Weight: 567g
- Dimensions: 17 x 23mm
- Publication Date: 03 Dec 2014
- Publisher: The University of Chicago Press
- Publication City/Country: US
- Product Form: Paperback
Secure
checkout
Fast Shipping
Easy returns
When the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act, some saw the decision as a textbook example of neutral judicial decision making, noting that a Republican Chief Justice joined the Court's Democratic appointees to uphold most provisions of the ACA. Others characterized the decision as the latest example of partisan justice and cited the actions of a bloc of the Court's Republican appointees, who voted to strike down the statute in its entirety. Still others argued that the ACA's fate ultimately hinged on the outcome of the 2012 election. These interpretations reflect larger stories about judicial politics that have emerged in polarized America. Are judges neutral legal umpires, unaccountable partisan activists, or political actors whose decisions conform to-rather than challenge-the democratic will? Thomas M. Keck argues that, despite judges' claims, legal decisions are not the politically neutral products of disembodied legal texts. But neither are judges "tyrants in robes," undermining democratic values by imposing their own preferences. Just as often, judges and the public seem to be pushing in the same direction.
As for the argument that the courts are powerless institutions, Keck shows that their decisions have profound political effects. And, while advocates on both the left and right engage constantly in litigation to achieve their ends, neither side has consistently won. Ultimately, Keck argues, judges respond not simply as umpires, activists, or political actors, but in light of distinctive judicial values and practices.
Thomas M. Keck is the Michael O. Sawyer Chair of Constitutional Law and Politics at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He is the author of The Most Activist Supreme Court in History, also published by the University of Chicago Press.
