The Supreme Court And American Democracy

In this work, Anna Harvey reports evidence showing that the Supreme Court is in fact extraordinarily deferential to congressional preferences in its constitutional rulings.

Written expressly for a student audience, this core text has a non-ideological theme - the tension between the Supreme Court's power of judicial review and the democratic, majoritarian features of American government. This allows the reader to examine the place of the Court in the broader context of American society and the American system of democratic self-government. Seven case studies show constitutional litigation in action.

In The Supreme Court and Constitutional Democracy John Agresto traces the development of American judicial power, paying close attention to what he views as the very real threat of judicial supremacy. Agresto examines the role of the judiciary in a democratic society and discusses the proper place of congressional power in constitutional issues. Agresto argues that while the separation of congressional and judicial functions is a fundamental tenet of American government, the present system is not effective in maintaining an appropriate balance of power. He shows that continued judicial expansion, especially into the realm of public policy, might have severe consequences for America's national life and direction, and offers practical recommendations for safeguarding against an increasingly powerful Supreme Court. John Agresto's controversial argument, set in the context of a historical and theoretical inquiry, will be of great interest to scholars and students in political science and law, especially American constitutional law and political theory.

The current five-vote majority on the Supreme Court may be the most divisive, anti-democratic court in American history. Overruling Democracy disputes the majority's awful rulings on third parties, race, high schools and corporations.

Many critics attack federal judges as anti-democratic elitists, activists out of step with the mainstream of American thought. But others argue that judges should stand alone as the ultimate guardians of American values, placing principle before the views of the people. In The Most Democratic Branch, Jeffrey Rosen disagrees with both assertions. Contrary to what interest groups may claim, he contends that, from the days of John Marshall right up to the present, the federal courts by and large have reflected the opinions of the mainstream. More important, he argues that the Supreme Court is most successful when it defers to the constitutional views of the American people, as represented most notably by Congress and the Presidency. And on the rare occasion when they departed from the consensus, the result has often been a disaster. To illustrate, Rosen provides a penetrating look at some of the most important Supreme Court cases in American history--cases involving racial equality, affirmative action, abortion, gay rights and gay marriage, the right to die, electoral disputes, and civil liberties in wartime. Rosen shows that the most notorious constitutional decisions in American history--the ones that have been most strenuously criticized, such as Dred Scott or Roe v. Wade--have gone against mainstream opinion. By contrast, the most successful decisions--from Marbury v. Madison to Brown v. Board of Education--have avoided imposing constitutional principles over the wishes of the people. Rosen concludes that the judiciary works best when it identifies the constitutional principles accepted by a majority of Americans, and enforces them unequivocally as fundamental law. Jeffrey Rosen is one of the most respected legal experts writing today, a regular contributor to The New York Times Magazine and the Legal Affairs Editor of The New Republic. The provocative arguments that he puts forth here are bound to fuel heated debate at a time when the federal judiciary is already the focus of fierce criticism.

There is almost no political question in the United States, wrote Alexis de Tocqueville, that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question. The U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of judicial questions, weighing the laws enacted by the people's representatives against the inviolable fundamental law embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Virtually every vital political and social issue comes before the Court: abortion, affirmative action, capital punishment, elections and voting, gay rights, gun control, separation of church and state, and more. This book presents living law, the case-by-case shaping of the law on each of these controversial issues, in the justices' own words and with informative commentary. There is almost no political question in the United States, wrote Alexis de Tocqueville, that is not resolved sooner or later into a judicial question. The U.S. Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of judicial questions, weighing the laws enacted by the people's representatives against the inviolable fundamental law embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Virtually every vital political and social issue comes before the Court: abortion, affirmative action, capital punishment, elections and voting, gay rights, gun control, separation of church and state, and more. This book presents living law, the case-by-case shaping of the law on each of these controversial issues, in the justices' own words. ; Guide to the Court's functions and the ways in which it goes about its work ; Topically organized sequences of cases through which the law on particular issues evolved, including the facts of each case; the specific issues before the Court; the Court's decision, embodied in the text of the majority opinion; an account of all opinions handed down; and excerpts from the most influential concurrences and dissents ; Commentary summarizing current federal law on each of the controversial topics covered, with notes on the historical background—and in some cases the turbulent aftermath—of the Court's decisions