Activism
Adjudication
Amendment
Americans
Anthony Kennedy
Attempt
Brown v. Board of Education
Category=LNAA
Category=LND
Commerce Clause
Consideration
Constitutional amendment
Constitutional law
Constitutionality
Cooper v. Aaron
Criticism
Deliberation
Directive (European Union)
Discretion
Dred Scott
Due process
Due Process Clause
eq_isMigrated=1
eq_nobargain
Equal Protection Clause
Establishment Clause
Federal government of the United States
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Freedom of speech
Injunction
Institution
Judge
Judicial activism
Judicial interpretation
Judicial restraint
Judiciary
Jurisprudence
Jurist
Law clerk
Law school
Lawrence v. Texas
Lawyer
Legal culture
Legislation
Legislator
Legislature
Legitimacy (political)
Marbury v. Madison
Morality
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
Plurality opinion
Political culture
Political philosophy
Politics
Precedent
Presumption (canon law)
Provision (contracting)
Rehnquist Court
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
Representative democracy
Republicanism
Robert P. George
Roe v. Wade
Ronald Dworkin
Rule of law
Separation of powers
Slavery
Standing (law)
State government
Statute
Substantive due process
Supreme Court of the United States
Term limit
United States federal judge
Product details
- ISBN 9780691116686
- Weight: 312g
- Dimensions: 152 x 235mm
- Publication Date: 05 Sep 2004
- Publisher: Princeton University Press
- Publication City/Country: US
- Product Form: Paperback
Secure
checkout
Fast Shipping
Easy returns
The role of the United States Supreme Court has been deeply controversial throughout American history. Should the Court undertake the task of guarding a wide variety of controversial and often unenumerated rights? Or should it confine itself to enforcing specific constitutional provisions, leaving other issues (even those of rights) to the democratic process? That Eminent Tribunal brings together a distinguished group of legal scholars and political scientists who argue that the Court's power has exceeded its appropriate bounds, and that sound republican principles require greater limits on that power. They reach this conclusion by an interesting variety of paths, and despite varied political convictions. Some of the essays debate the explicit claims to constitutional authority laid out by the Supreme Court itself in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and similar cases, and others focus on the defenses of judicial authority found commonly in legal scholarship (e.g., the allegedly superior moral reasoning of judges, or judges' supposed track record of superior political decision making).
The authors find these arguments wanting and contend that the principles of republicanism and the contemporary form of judicial review exercised by the Supreme Court are fundamentally incompatible. The contributors include Hadley Arkes, Gerard V. Bradley, George Liebmann, Michael McConnell, Robert F. Nagel, Jack Wade Nowlin, Steven D. Smith, Jeremy Waldron, Keith E. Whittington, Christopher Wolfe, and Michael P. Zuckert.
Christopher Wolfe is Professor of Political Science at Marquette University. He is the author of "How to Interpret the Constitution, Judicial Activism", and "The Rise of Modern Judicial Review".
