- Table View
- List View
The Judicial Mind: A Festschrift for Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore
by Brice Dickson and Conor McCormickThis collection of essays is a tribute to Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, who died aged 72 on 1 December 2020 after having retired from the UK Supreme Court just two months earlier. Brian Kerr was appointed as a judge of the High Court of Northern Ireland in 1993. He became the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland in 2004 before being elevated to a peerage and appointed as the last Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in June 2009. Four months later, as Lord Kerr, he moved from the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords to the UK Supreme Court where, after exactly 11 years, he concluded his distinguished judicial career as the longest-serving Justice to date. During his career he established an exceptional reputation for independence of thought, fairness and humanitarianism. Lord Kerr's judicial mind has inspired and influenced a significant number of scholars and jurists throughout the UK and beyond. In this book, his unique brand of jurisprudence is examined alongside a catalogue of broader issues in which he displayed a keen interest during his lifetime. The volume includes topical contributions from a range of legal experts in Britain and Ireland. Lord Kerr's particular interest in public law, human rights law, criminal law, and family law is featured prominently, but so too is the importance of his dissenting judgments, some influential jurisprudence of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (where he sat on many occasions), the legacy of his influence on the law and legal system of Northern Ireland and the significance of his place in the historical development of judicial roles and responsibilities more generally.
The Judicial Mind: A Festschrift for Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore
This collection of essays is a tribute to Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, who died aged 72 on 1 December 2020 after having retired from the UK Supreme Court just two months earlier. Brian Kerr was appointed as a judge of the High Court of Northern Ireland in 1993. He became the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland in 2004 before being elevated to a peerage and appointed as the last Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in June 2009. Four months later, as Lord Kerr, he moved from the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords to the UK Supreme Court where, after exactly 11 years, he concluded his distinguished judicial career as the longest-serving Justice to date. During his career he established an exceptional reputation for independence of thought, fairness and humanitarianism. Lord Kerr's judicial mind has inspired and influenced a significant number of scholars and jurists throughout the UK and beyond. In this book, his unique brand of jurisprudence is examined alongside a catalogue of broader issues in which he displayed a keen interest during his lifetime. The volume includes topical contributions from a range of legal experts in Britain and Ireland. Lord Kerr's particular interest in public law, human rights law, criminal law, and family law is featured prominently, but so too is the importance of his dissenting judgments, some influential jurisprudence of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (where he sat on many occasions), the legacy of his influence on the law and legal system of Northern Ireland and the significance of his place in the historical development of judicial roles and responsibilities more generally.
Judicial Nominations
by Neal DevinsOn 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.
Judicial Nominations (Federal Abortion Politics Ser. #Vol. 3)
by Neal Devins Wendy L. WatsonOn 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.
Judicial Politics in Polarized Times
by Thomas M. KeckWhen 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.
Judicial Politics in Polarized Times
by Thomas M. KeckWhen 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.
Judicial Politics in Polarized Times
by Thomas M. KeckWhen 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.
Judicial Politics in Polarized Times
by Thomas M. KeckWhen 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.
Judicial Politics in Polarized Times
by Thomas M. KeckWhen 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.
Judicial Politics in Polarized Times
by Thomas M. KeckWhen 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.
The Judicial Politics of Economic Integration: The Andean Court as an Engine of Development
by Osvaldo SaldiasThe Judicial Politics of Economic Integration analyses development strategies and regional integration in the Andean Community (the former Andean Pact), focusing on the establishment of the Andean Court of Justice and its case law, as well as the intellectual underpinnings that made such an impressive reform possible. The court is a transplant taken from the European integration process, and it materializes the visions, expectations, and dreams of the transnational development movement of "integration through law". The book discusses the outcomes of the Court in light of the debates about judicial reform in the process of development and regional integration. Although clearly confirming several earlier claims that "one size does not fit all", Osvaldo Saldias provides new insights into how legal transplants adapt and evolve, and how we can learn much more about legal reform from a project that presumably failed than from successful copies. The Andean Court of Justice is a remarkable example of an institution capable of adapting to political and economic challenges; therefore, in times of a severe European economic crisis we should not forget that we might improve our understanding of European integration by looking at developments in other regions. An interesting new study with an international focus, this book will be a fascinating read for students and scholars of Law and Latin American Studies.
The Judicial Politics of Economic Integration: The Andean Court as an Engine of Development
by Osvaldo SaldiasThe Judicial Politics of Economic Integration analyses development strategies and regional integration in the Andean Community (the former Andean Pact), focusing on the establishment of the Andean Court of Justice and its case law, as well as the intellectual underpinnings that made such an impressive reform possible. The court is a transplant taken from the European integration process, and it materializes the visions, expectations, and dreams of the transnational development movement of "integration through law". The book discusses the outcomes of the Court in light of the debates about judicial reform in the process of development and regional integration. Although clearly confirming several earlier claims that "one size does not fit all", Osvaldo Saldias provides new insights into how legal transplants adapt and evolve, and how we can learn much more about legal reform from a project that presumably failed than from successful copies. The Andean Court of Justice is a remarkable example of an institution capable of adapting to political and economic challenges; therefore, in times of a severe European economic crisis we should not forget that we might improve our understanding of European integration by looking at developments in other regions. An interesting new study with an international focus, this book will be a fascinating read for students and scholars of Law and Latin American Studies.
Judicial Power And American Character: Censoring Ourselves In An Anxious Age
by Robert F. NagelIn this highly original book, Robert Nagel demonstrates how contemporary constitutional politics reflect the moral character of American culture. He persuasively argues that judicial decisions embody wider social tendenceies towards moral evasiveness, privatization, and opportunism. Constitutional interpretation, he urges, is often an effort to stifle political disagreement and, ultimately, to censor our own beliefs and traditions. Nagel ranges over such controversial topics as the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork, local resistance to abortion rights, political correctness on campus, and judicial decisions dealing with pornography, flag burning, gay rights, school prayer, and racial desegregation. Crossing conventional political and philosophical lines, the analysis is surprising and provocative. Nagel sees fundamental similarities between liberals like Ronald Dworkin and conservatives like Bork. He finds judicial arrogance in jurists as different as William Brennan and Sandra O'Connor. Clearly written and forcefully argued, this work is an audacious examination of judicial power as an integral part of our increasingly anxious and intolerant society.
Judicial Power and American Character: Censoring Ourselves in an Anxious Age
by Robert F. NagelIn this highly original book, Robert Nagel demonstrates how contemporary constitutional politics reflect the moral character of American culture. He persuasively argues that judicial decisions embody wider social tendenceies towards moral evasiveness, privatization, and opportunism. Constitutional interpretation, he urges, is often an effort to stifle political disagreement and, ultimately, to censor our own beliefs and traditions. Nagel ranges over such controversial topics as the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork, local resistance to abortion rights, political correctness on campus, and judicial decisions dealing with pornography, flag burning, gay rights, school prayer, and racial desegregation. Crossing conventional political and philosophical lines, the analysis is surprising and provocative. Nagel sees fundamental similarities between liberals like Ronald Dworkin and conservatives like Bork. He finds judicial arrogance in jurists as different as William Brennan and Sandra O'Connor. Clearly written and forcefully argued, this work is an audacious examination of judicial power as an integral part of our increasingly anxious and intolerant society.
Judicial Power and Reconstruction Politics
by Stanley I. KutlerA study of the Supreme Court in the wake of the Dred Scott decision. This book investigates the political and public standing of the Supreme Court following the Dred Scott decision. Arguing against interpretations by previous historians, Kutler asserts instead that the "Chase Court" was neither enfeebled by the decision itself, nor by congressional Republicans during reconstruction. Instead, Kutler suggests that during reconstruction, the Court was characterized by forcefulness and judicious restraint rather than timidity and cowardice, holding a creative and determining role rather than abdicating its rightful powers. This volume assembles a series of essays by Kutler arguing for this characterization. Provocative and persuasive at turns, this collection of essays provides a bold and innovative reinterpretation of the Supreme Court after the Civil War.
Judicial Power, Democracy and Legal Positivism (Applied Legal Philosophy)
by Tom D. Campbell Jeffrey GoldsworthyIn this book, a distinguished international group of legal theorists re-examine legal positivism as a prescriptive political theory and consider its implications for the constitutionally defined roles of legislatures and courts. The issues are illustrated with recent developments in Australian constitutional law.
Judicial Power, Democracy and Legal Positivism (Applied Legal Philosophy)
by Tom Campbell and Jeffrey GoldsworthyIn this book, a distinguished international group of legal theorists re-examine legal positivism as a prescriptive political theory and consider its implications for the constitutionally defined roles of legislatures and courts. The issues are illustrated with recent developments in Australian constitutional law.
Judicial Power in a Globalized World: Liber Amicorum Vincent De Gaetano
by Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque Krzysztof WojtyczekThis book explores fundamental topics concerning the functioning of the judiciary. The authors – class scholars, international judges and jurists from a diverse range of countries – address general theoretical issues in connection with judicial power, the role and functioning of international courts, international standards concerning the organization of national judiciaries, and the role of domestic courts in international relations, as well as alternative means of settling disputes. The book contributes a novel and valuable global perspective on burning issues, especially on judicial power and independence in a time in which illiberal and authoritarian regimes are constantly seeking to diminish the role of the judiciary.
The Judicial Power of the Purse: How Courts Fund National Defense in Times of Crisis (Chicago Series on International and Domestic Institutions)
by Nancy StaudtCongress and the president are not the only branches that deal with fiscal issues in times of war. In this innovative book, Nancy Staudt focuses on the role of federal courts in fiscal matters during warfare and high-cost national defense emergencies. There is, she argues, a judicial power of the purse that becomes evident upon examining the budgetary effects of judicial decision making. The book provides substantial evidence that judges are willing—maybe even eager—to redirect private monies into government hands when the country is in peril, but when the judges receive convincing cues that ongoing wartime activities undermine the nation’s interests, they are more likely to withhold funds from the government by deciding cases in favor of private individuals and entities who show up in court. In stark contrast with conventional legal, political, and institutional thought that privileges factors associated with individual preferences, The Judicial Power of the Purse sheds light on environmental factors in judicial decision making and will be an excellent read for students of judicial behavior in political science and law.
The Judicial Power of the Purse: How Courts Fund National Defense in Times of Crisis (Chicago Series on International and Domestic Institutions)
by Nancy StaudtCongress and the president are not the only branches that deal with fiscal issues in times of war. In this innovative book, Nancy Staudt focuses on the role of federal courts in fiscal matters during warfare and high-cost national defense emergencies. There is, she argues, a judicial power of the purse that becomes evident upon examining the budgetary effects of judicial decision making. The book provides substantial evidence that judges are willing—maybe even eager—to redirect private monies into government hands when the country is in peril, but when the judges receive convincing cues that ongoing wartime activities undermine the nation’s interests, they are more likely to withhold funds from the government by deciding cases in favor of private individuals and entities who show up in court. In stark contrast with conventional legal, political, and institutional thought that privileges factors associated with individual preferences, The Judicial Power of the Purse sheds light on environmental factors in judicial decision making and will be an excellent read for students of judicial behavior in political science and law.
The Judicial Power of the Purse: How Courts Fund National Defense in Times of Crisis (Chicago Series on International and Domestic Institutions)
by Nancy StaudtCongress and the president are not the only branches that deal with fiscal issues in times of war. In this innovative book, Nancy Staudt focuses on the role of federal courts in fiscal matters during warfare and high-cost national defense emergencies. There is, she argues, a judicial power of the purse that becomes evident upon examining the budgetary effects of judicial decision making. The book provides substantial evidence that judges are willing—maybe even eager—to redirect private monies into government hands when the country is in peril, but when the judges receive convincing cues that ongoing wartime activities undermine the nation’s interests, they are more likely to withhold funds from the government by deciding cases in favor of private individuals and entities who show up in court. In stark contrast with conventional legal, political, and institutional thought that privileges factors associated with individual preferences, The Judicial Power of the Purse sheds light on environmental factors in judicial decision making and will be an excellent read for students of judicial behavior in political science and law.
The Judicial Power of the United States: The Eleventh Amendment in American History
by John V. OrthAlthough less than fifty words long, the meaning of the seemingly simple Eleventh Amendment has troubled the Supreme Court at crucial points in American history and continues to spur sharp debate in present-day courts. The first amendment adopted after the Bill of Rights, the Eleventh Amendment limits the exercise of U.S. judicial power when American states are sued. Its modern meaning was largely shaped around cases concerning the liability of Southern states to pay their debts during and after Reconstruction; by shielding states from liability, the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment eased the establishment of post-Reconstruction Southern society and left a maddeningly complicated law of federal jurisdiction. Here, Orth reconstructs the fascinating but obscure history of the Eleventh Amendment--the labyrinth of legal doctrine, the economic motives and consequences, the political context, and the legacy of the past--over the last two centuries. Using quotes from Wordsworth, Shaw, Mark Twain, Margaret Mitchell, and other writers to clarify and invigorate his narrative, Orth finally makes accessible an important but complex slice of constitutional history.
Judicial Practice, Customary International Criminal Law and Nullum Crimen Sine Lege
by Thomas RauterThis study analyzes the methods used by international criminal tribunals when determining customary international criminal law and to consider the compatibility of these approaches with the nullum crimen sine lege principle. In this context, the following research questions are of particular importance: Is there one approach common to all international criminal tribunals, or can different approaches be detected in their jurisprudence when determining customary international law? Do international criminal tribunals regard both traditional elements of customary international law – State practice and opinio iuris – as necessary elements for the establishment of customary international law? Do international criminal tribunals argue along the lines of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), requiring a high frequency and consistency of State practice that is both “extensive and virtually uniform”?In addition, the book analyzes the evidence used by international criminal tribunals in order to establish the constituent elements of customary international. It then poses the question: Do international criminal tribunals distinguish, as defined by Schwarzenberger, between the “law-creating processes” of public international law on the one hand, and the “law-determining agencies” as a subsidiary means of determining rule of law on the other?Assuming that they exist, how can different methodological approaches to determine customary international law be assessed in light of the nullum crimen sine lege principle? Does the principle require judges to apply the traditional method to establish customary international law as being based on extensive, uniform and enduring State practice accompanied by opinio iuris? Can the principle balance the desire for justice and the specificities of law creation of the international legal order with fairness for the accused? How can the law be accessible and criminal punishment foreseeable, when the underlying legal basis for criminal convictions, namely customary international criminal law, is unwritten in nature?
Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking
by G. Alan TarrAn excellent introduction to judicial politics as a method of analysis, the eighth edition of Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking focuses on policy in the judicial process. Rather than limiting the text to coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court, G. Alan Tarr examines the judiciary as the third branch of government, and weaves four major premises throughout the text: (1) Courts in the United States have always played an important role in governing and their role has increased in recent decades; (2) Judicial policymaking is a distinctive activity; (3) Courts make policy in a variety of ways; and (4) Courts may be the objects of public policy, as well as creators.New to the Eighth Edition Discusses appointments by Presidents Donald Trump and Joseph Biden to the federal courts, including the confirmations of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett, and Jackson to the Supreme Court Introduces the controversy of the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” Analyzes the legal and political aftermath of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overruling Roe v. Wade Examines other key state and federal rulings on non-unanimous verdicts in criminal cases, gerrymandering, climate change, and separation between church and state
Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking
by G. Alan TarrAn excellent introduction to judicial politics as a method of analysis, the eighth edition of Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking focuses on policy in the judicial process. Rather than limiting the text to coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court, G. Alan Tarr examines the judiciary as the third branch of government, and weaves four major premises throughout the text: (1) Courts in the United States have always played an important role in governing and their role has increased in recent decades; (2) Judicial policymaking is a distinctive activity; (3) Courts make policy in a variety of ways; and (4) Courts may be the objects of public policy, as well as creators.New to the Eighth Edition Discusses appointments by Presidents Donald Trump and Joseph Biden to the federal courts, including the confirmations of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Coney Barrett, and Jackson to the Supreme Court Introduces the controversy of the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket” Analyzes the legal and political aftermath of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overruling Roe v. Wade Examines other key state and federal rulings on non-unanimous verdicts in criminal cases, gerrymandering, climate change, and separation between church and state