That Eminent Tribunal: Judicial Supremacy and the Constitution by Christopher Wolfe

Page Updated:
Book Views: 22

Author
Christopher Wolfe
Publisher
Princeton University Press
Date of release
Pages
237
ISBN
9781282087057
Binding
ebook
Illustrations
Format
PDF, EPUB, MOBI, TXT, DOC
Rating
3
69

Advertising

Get eBOOK
That Eminent Tribunal: Judicial Supremacy and the Constitution

Find and Download Book

Click one of share button to proceed download:
Choose server for download:
Download
Get It!
File size:8 mb
Estimated time:4 min
If not downloading or you getting an error:
  • Try another server.
  • Try to reload page — press F5 on keyboard.
  • Clear browser cache.
  • Clear browser cookies.
  • Try other browser.
  • If you still getting an error — please contact us and we will fix this error ASAP.
Sorry for inconvenience!
For authors or copyright holders
Amazon Affiliate

Go to Removal form

Leave a comment

Book review

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.


Readers reviews