When commentators discuss the United States Supreme Court’s jurisprudence, there is often spirited debate concerning which decisions constitute the ‘best’ and ‘worst’ in the Court’s history. Far too often, this debate splits along ideological lines, with progressive commentators praising landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges, and conservative commentators lamenting decisions such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Lawrence v. Texas. Regardless of one’s ideological predilections, such debates mistakenly focus on the outcomes that the Court reached in these cases, rather than on the processes by which the Court arrived at the results, including the impact that such decisions have on federalism, separation of powers,
…show more content…
The chapters within each part are dedicated to a single Supreme Court decision, in which the authors analyze the Court’s reasoning and explain why it undermined federalism, separation of powers, and democratic governance. In addition, the authors also explain why these decisions compromised the relationship between the Court and coordinate branches, the federal government and the states, and citizens and their elected representatives. In a separate chapter that authors explain why some heavily-criticized decisions in the Court’s recent history, such as Bush v. Gore and National Federation of Independent Investors v. Sebelius, are justifiable as a matter of constitutional law, regardless of how one views the …show more content…
Specifically, the authors advocate for a process-oriented, pro-democracy theory of judicial review in which the Court’s role is to indirectly check democratic majorities through decisions that enhance participation in and access to the democratic process. Simply put, the connection between the process of judicial decision-making and the health of democracy is largely overlooked and consistently understated. The authors also advance a theory of constitutional interpretation in which rights not viewed as absolute, but as contextual, and argues that the protections afforded to individual rights should be predicated, in part, on the effects that their exercise will have on third-parties. The final chapter offers concluding thoughts and argues that a healthy democracy is the foundation upon which equality rests, and that a collective view of rights is the path by which to restore liberty for all
The chapters within each part are dedicated to a single Supreme Court decision, in which the authors analyze the Court’s reasoning and explain why it undermined federalism, separation of powers, and democratic governance. In addition, the authors also explain why these decisions compromised the relationship between the Court and coordinate branches, the federal government and the states, and citizens and their elected representatives. In a separate chapter that authors explain why some heavily-criticized decisions in the Court’s recent history, such as Bush v. Gore and National Federation of Independent Investors v. Sebelius, are justifiable as a matter of constitutional law, regardless of how one views the …show more content…
Specifically, the authors advocate for a process-oriented, pro-democracy theory of judicial review in which the Court’s role is to indirectly check democratic majorities through decisions that enhance participation in and access to the democratic process. Simply put, the connection between the process of judicial decision-making and the health of democracy is largely overlooked and consistently understated. The authors also advance a theory of constitutional interpretation in which rights not viewed as absolute, but as contextual, and argues that the protections afforded to individual rights should be predicated, in part, on the effects that their exercise will have on third-parties. The final chapter offers concluding thoughts and argues that a healthy democracy is the foundation upon which equality rests, and that a collective view of rights is the path by which to restore liberty for all