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.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!