scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessBook

The Supreme Court and American political development

Ronald Kahn, +1 more
Reads0
Chats0
TLDR
Brandwein et al. as mentioned in this paper explored the evolution of constitutional doctrine as elaborated by the Supreme Court, revealing how its decision-making and legal authority evolve in response to a variety of influences: not only laws and legal precedents, but also social and political movements, election returns and regime changes.
Abstract
This innovative volume explores the evolution of constitutional doctrine as elaborated by the Supreme Court. Moving beyond the traditional ""law versus politics"" perspective, the authors draw extensively on recent studies in American Political Development (APD) to present a much more complex and sophisticated view of the Court as both a legal and political entity. The contributors - including Pam Brandwein, Howard Gillman, Mark Graber, Ronald Kahn, Tom Keck, Ken Kersch, Wayne Moore, Carol Nackenoff, Julie Novkov, and Mark Tushnet - share an appreciation that the process of constitutional development involves a complex interplay between factors internal and external to the Court. They underscore the developmental nature of the Court, revealing how its decision-making and legal authority evolve in response to a variety of influences: not only laws and legal precedents, but also social and political movements, election returns and regime changes, advocacy group litigation, and the interpretive community of scholars, journalists, and lawyers. Initial chapters reexamine standard approaches to the question of causation in judicial decision-making and the relationship between the Court and the ambient political order. Next, a selection of historical case studies exemplifies how the Court constructs its own authority as it defines individual rights and the powers of government. They show how interpretations of the Reconstruction amendments inform our understanding of racial discrimination, explain the undermining of affirmative action after Bakke, and consider why Roe v. Wade has yet to be overturned. They also tell how the Court has collaborated with political coalitions to produce the New Deal, Great Society, and Reagan Revolution, and why Native Americans have different citizenship rights than other Americans. These contributions encourage further debate about the nature and processes of constitutional change.

read more

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Law and American Political Development

TL;DR: Kahn and Kersch as mentioned in this paper reviewed the recent volume edited by Ronald Kahn and Ken I. Kersch, The Supreme Court and American Political Development (2006), as well as the broader literature by law scholars interested in American political development.
Journal ArticleDOI

Public Opinion, Organized Labor, and the Limits of New Deal Liberalism, 1936–1945

TL;DR: This article explored the dynamics of public opinion regarding New Deal liberalism during this pivotal era and found that the anti-labor reaction was especially virulent in the South but divided even Northern Democrats, creating an effective wedge issue for Republicans and their Southern conservative allies.
Journal ArticleDOI

Public Opinion, Organized Labor, and the Limits of New Deal Liberalism, 1936-1945

TL;DR: This article explored the dynamics of public opinion regarding New Deal liberalism from this pivotal era and found that the anti-labor reaction was especially virulent in the South but divided even Northern Democrats, thus creating an effective wedge issue for Republicans and their Southern conservative allies.
Book

Rethinking the Judicial Settlement of Reconstruction

TL;DR: In this paper, the state action doctrine and the concept of state neglect were discussed in an intramural Republican debate, 1867-73, 1874-6, 1876-91, and 1896-1909.
Journal ArticleDOI

Institutions, Rulemaking, and the Politics of Judicial Retrenchment

TL;DR: This paper examined the efforts of political and legal actors to scale back access to the courts and judicial authority in the decades since the rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, and found that the groups involved in judicial retrenchment change significantly over time, are motivated by more than partisan backlash, and that the availability of malleable institutional "rules" enhances the likelihood of their success.
Related Papers (5)