The Myth of Judicial Activism: Making Sense of Supreme Court Decisions
Yale University Press, 2006. 1. 1. - 262페이지
This carefully considered book is a welcome addition to the debate over "judicial activism.” Constitutional scholar Kermit Roosevelt III offers an elegantly simple way to resolve the heated discord between conservatives, who argue that the Constitution is immutable, and progressives, who insist that it is a living document that must be reinterpreted in new cultural contexts so that its meaning evolves. Roosevelt uses plain language and compelling examples to explain how the Constitution can be both a constant and an organic document.
Recent years have witnessed an increasing drumbeat of complaints about judicial behavior, focusing particularly on Supreme Court decisions that critics charge are reflections of the Justices’ political preferences rather than enforcement of the Constitution. The author takes a balanced look at these controversial decisions through a compelling new lens of constitutional interpretation. He clarifies the task of the Supreme Court in constitutional cases, then sets out a model to describe how the Court creates doctrine to implement the meaning of the Constitution. Finally, Roosevelt uses this model to show which decisions can be justified as legitimate and which cannot.
다른 사람들의 의견 - 서평 쓰기
서평을 찾을 수 없습니다.
What Doctrine Is For
FOUR Equal Protection Criminal Procedure
Kelo v City of New London
G H T The Establishment Clause
Roper and Atkins
TWELVE Reviled Decisions
기타 출판본 - 모두 보기
abortion accept action activism adopted allow Amendment American answer applications approach appropriate argued argument asserted authority balancing basis benefits better Black branches Brown burdens called chapter citizens claim clear concerned Congress considered Constitution constitutional meaning costs created critics decide decisions deference deferential determine discrimination discuss doctrine Dred Due Process effect enforcement Equal Protection Clause Establishment Executive exist fact factors federal follow give given individual interest issue judges judgment judicial Justice justified lead legislative legislature legitimate less liberty limits marriage meaning ment offered opinion originalism particular plain political practices probably prohibits provision punishment question racial ratifiers Reading reason regulate relatively religious respect rule schools Scott scrutiny seems Senate sense simply speech standard strike suggest Supreme Court things tion understanding United University Press values violated vote women