On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Roe v. Wade. Holding that a woman's substantive due process right to terminate her pregnancy in the early months outweighed state interests in maternal health and fetal protection, the Court struck down a Texas law permitting abortions only to save the life of the mother. This series is divided into three volumes, with each part containing multiple case studies. Volume One (two books) considers legislative initiatives; Volume Two (two books) reviews executive initiatives; and Volume Three (one book) examines judicial nominations. Abortion funding, clinic access legislation, freedom of choice and human life legislative proposals, and proposed constitutional amendments are considered in Part One. Presidential positions, federal family planning regulation (domestic and international), fetal tissue research, and governmental briefs and arguments in abortion-related Supreme Court litigation are the subject of Part Two. First published in 1995. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

Are Supreme Court justices swayed by the political environment that surrounds them? Most people think "yes," and they point to the influence of the general public and the other branches of government on the Court. It is not that simple, however. As the eminent law and politics scholars Neal Devins and Lawrence Baum show in The Company They Keep, justices today are reacting far more to subtle social forces in their own elite legal world than to pressure from the other branches of government or mass public opinion. In particular, the authors draw from social psychology research to show why Justices are apt to follow the lead of the elite social networks that they are a part of. The evidence is strong: Justices take cues primarily from the people who are closest to them and whose approval they care most about: political, social, and professional elites. In an era of strong partisan polarization, elite social networks are largely bifurcated by partisan and ideological loyalties, and the Justices reflect that division. The result is a Court in which the Justices' ideological stances reflect the dominant views in the appointing president's party. Justices such as Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg live largely in a milieu populated by like-minded elites. Today's partisanship on the Court also stems from the emergence of conservative legal networks such as the Federalist Society, that reinforce the conservative leanings of Republican appointees. For the Warren and Burger Courts, elite social networks were dominated by liberal elites and not divided by political party or ideology. A fascinating examination of the factors that shape decision-making, The Company They Keep will reshape our understanding of how political polarization occurs on the contemporary Supreme Court.

Are Supreme Court justices swayed by the political environment that surrounds them? The intuitive response of most is "yes," and most point to trends in electoral politics as well as the nature of the relationship between the three branches of government. It is not that simple, however. As the eminent law and politics scholars Neal Devins and Larry Baum show in The Company They Keep, justices today are reacting to far more subtle social drivers than pressure from other branches of government or mass public opinion. In particular, by making use of social psychology, they examine why Justices are apt to follow the lead of the elite social networks that they are a part of. That is, the justices take cues primarily from the people who are closest to them and whose approval they care most about: political, social, and professional elites. The result is a court in which the justices' ideological stances reflect the dominant views in the appointing president's party. Devins and Baum argue that today's partisanship on the Court is also tied to the emergence of the conservative legal network-a social network that reinforces the conservative leanings of Republican appointees. For earlier Courts, elite social networks were not divided by political party or ideology, but for today's Court, elite social networks are largely bifurcated by partisan and ideological loyalties, and the Justices reflect that bifurcation. A fascinating examination the factors that impact decision-making, The Company They Keep will reshape our understanding of the contemporary Supreme Court.

This book brings together essays from a distinguished group of scholars, presenting an array of views about the meaning of equality and providing perspectives on the on-going debates about it. By bringing together essays from prominent writers in America in law, history, and social science, the collection presents a range of opinions and insights that speak to America's ability to define and deal with the politics of equality.

For more than a decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has turned a skeptical eye toward Congress. Distrustful of Congress’s capacity to respect constitutional boundaries, the Court has recently overturned federal legislation at a historically unprecedented rate. This intensified judicial scrutiny highlights the need for increased attention to how Congress approaches constitutional issues. In this important collection, leading scholars in law and political science examine the role of Congress in constitutional interpretation, demonstrating how to better integrate the legislative branch into understandings of constitutional practice.Several contributors offer wide-ranging accounts of the workings of Congress. They look at lawmakers’ attitudes toward Congress’s role as a constitutional interpreter, the offices within Congress that help lawmakers learn about constitutional issues, Congress’s willingness to use its confirmation power to shape constitutional decisions by both the executive and the courts, and the frequency with which congressional committees take constitutional questions into account. Other contributors address congressional deliberation, paying particular attention to whether Congress’s constitutional interpretations are sound. Still others examine how Congress and the courts should respond to one another’s decisions, suggesting how the courts should evaluate Congress’s work and considering how lawmakers respond to Court decisions that strike down federal legislation. While some essayists are inclined to evaluate Congress’s constitutional interpretation positively, others argue that it could be improved and suggest institutional and procedural reforms toward that end. Whatever their conclusions, all of the essays underscore the pervasive and crucial role that Congress plays in shaping the meaning of the Constitution. Contributors. David P. Currie, Neal Devins, William N. Eskridge Jr.. John Ferejohn, Louis Fisher, Elizabeth Garrett, Michael J. Gerhardt, Michael J. Klarman, Bruce G. Peabody, J. Mitchell Pickerill, Barbara Sinclair, Mark Tushnet, Adrian Vermeule, Keith E. Whittington, John C. Yoo