This collaboration of distinguished presidential scholars offers one of the first book-length post-presidency analyses of President George W. Bush and his policies. Mark J. Rozell and Gleaves Whitney have assembled a varied list of contributors from both ends of the political spectrum, bringing together academics and professionals to provide a glimpse into the politics and policies that defined President George W. Bush's presidency. Testing the Limits discusses all aspects of the Bush policy and administration, from staff appointments to foreign and domestic policy to budgetary politics. Several contributors focus their energy on the expansion of presidential powers during Bush presidency, assessing the increased influence of the Vice-President, the politicization of federal court appointments, and the development of executive privilege and presidential secrecy.

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 not on the Court but 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?
Drawing on a sweeping survey of litigation on abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, and gun rights across the Clinton, Bush, and Obama eras, Thomas M. Keck argues that, while each of these stories captures part of the significance of judicial politics in polarized times, each is also misleading. Despite judges' claims, actual 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.

This collaboration of distinguished presidential scholars offers one of the first book-length post-presidency analyses of President George W. Bush and his policies. Mark J. Rozell and Gleaves Whitney have assembled a varied list of contributors from both ends of the political spectrum, bringing together academics and professionals to provide a glimpse into the politics and policies that defined President George W. Bush's presidency. Testing the Limits discusses all aspects of the Bush policy and administration, from staff appointments to foreign and domestic policy to budgetary politics. Several contributors focus their energy on the expansion of presidential powers during Bush presidency, assessing the increased influence of the Vice-President, the politicization of federal court appointments, and the development of executive privilege and presidential secrecy.

When conservatives took control of the federal judiciary in the 1980s, it was widely assumed that they would reverse the landmark rights-protecting precedents set by the Warren Court and replace them with a broad commitment to judicial restraint. Instead, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist has reaffirmed most of those liberal decisions while creating its own brand of conservative judicial activism.
Ranging from 1937 to the present, "The Most Activist Supreme Court in History" traces the legal and political forces that have shaped the modern Court. Thomas M. Keck argues that the tensions within modern conservatism have produced a court that exercises its own power quite actively, on behalf of both liberal and conservative ends. Despite the long-standing conservative commitment to restraint, the justices of the Rehnquist Court have stepped in to settle divisive political conflicts over abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, presidential elections, and much more. Keck focuses in particular on the role of Justices O'Connor and Kennedy, whose deciding votes have shaped this uncharacteristically activist Court.