Informazioni su questo prodotto

Product Identifiers

PublisherUniversity of Chicago Press

ISBN-10022618241X

ISBN-139780226182414

eBay Product ID (ePID)26038272176

Product Key Features

Number of Pages352 Pages

LanguageEnglish

Publication NameJudicial Politics in Polarized Times

Publication Year2014

SubjectAmerican Government / Judicial Branch, Constitutional, Judicial Power, Courts

TypeTextbook

Subject AreaLaw, Political Science

AuthorThomas M. Keck

FormatTrade Paperback

Dimensions

Item Height0.1 in

Item Weight20.1 Oz

Item Length0.9 in

Item Width0.6 in

Additional Product Features

Intended AudienceScholarly & Professional

ReviewsThis is a robust, measured, and ultimately very persuasive book that places judicial review in the United States in context, insisting-and providing compelling evidence to support-the conclusion that judicial review is neither savior nor threat. It is, instead, a vital and still-important cog in our government machinery. Judicial Politics in Polarized Times could not be more timely, and I have no doubt that it will not only be a starting point for conversations about whether or not judicial review has a place in the American political system but actually help us move forward from that debate., A data-rich study of the complex and fascinating interplay between court decisions and movements for and against policy change in four politically polarized areas. The result is a provocative challenge to long-held and deeply cherished arguments for and against judicial review., This is a robust, measured, and ultimately very persuasive book that places judicial review in the United States in context, insisting--and providing compelling evidence to support--the conclusion that judicial review is neither savior nor threat. It is, instead, a vital and still-important cog in our government machinery. Judicial Politics in Polarized Times could not be more timely, and I have no doubt that it will not only be a starting point for conversations about whether or not judicial review has a place in the American political system but actually help us move forward from that debate., Keck explores litigation surrounding some of today's most contentious issues--gay rights, abortion, affirmative action, and gun rights. In doing so, he demonstrates that judicial decisions on these topics are part of--rather than antithetical to--democratic politics. Courts, Keck shows, are rarely imposing minority viewpoints on unwilling citizens and their elected representatives. Instead, courts are simply part of a broader system of push-and-pull, in which policy develops at multiple levels of government, across branches, and through a variety of mechanisms. Keck reorients our analysis to yield a more textured--and ultimately more realistic--picture of the role of courts and litigation today., Keck offers an insightful analysis of partisan politics and the judiciary in polarized times. . . . [His] analysis and research are balanced. And his discussion sheds light on what drives the constant onslaught of difficult culturally-charged lawsuits. . . . Those interested in the judicial-appointment process and the problems with partisan judging, those handling cases in the courts studied, and those who want to know more about hot-button issue litigation, will find this book extremely useful. I highly recommend it., In its comprehensiveness, its rigorous impartiality, and its careful, nuanced consideration of important normative questions about the role of courts in the contemporary United States, Keck's book is model scholarship on judicial politics, worthy of the highest praise., Keck explores litigation surrounding some of today's most contentious issues-gay rights, abortion, affirmative action, and gun rights. In doing so, he demonstrates that judicial decisions on these topics are part of-rather than antithetical to-democratic politics. Courts, Keck shows, are rarely imposing minority viewpoints on unwilling citizens and their elected representatives. Instead, courts are simply part of a broader system of push-and-pull, in which policy develops at multiple levels of government, across branches, and through a variety of mechanisms. Keck reorients our analysis to yield a more textured-and ultimately more realistic-picture of the role of courts and litigation today., Keck provides an important and timely discussion of judicial politics in this era of political polarization. . . . The book is incredibly detailed, . . . and Keck focuses on the leading issues of today's political discourse, such as gay rights and gun control, which helps make his argument more persuasive. . . . Highly recommended., Drawing on a sweeping survey of litigation on abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, and gun rights across the Clinton, Bush, and Obama eras, Keck argues that, 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. Ultimately, Keck concludes, judges respond not simply as umpires, activists, or political actors, but in light of distinctive judicial values and practices.

Dewey Edition23

IllustratedYes

Dewey Decimal342.7304

Table Of ContentPreface Introduction Three Stories about Courts Part I Rights on the Left, and Rights on the Right One Rights on the Left Two Rights on the Right Part II Courts, Democracy, and Policy Change Three Are Judges Umpires? Four Are Judges Tyrants? Five Are Judges Sideshows? Conclusion Judicial Politics in Polarized Times Appendix A Coding Procedures for Polarization Analysis Notes References Index Online at http://press.uchicago.edu /sites/keck / Appendix B Judicial Decisions Coded for Polarization Analysis Appendix C Congressional Votes Coded for Polarization Analysis

SynopsisWhen 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., In this era of polarized politics, three stories about judges have emerged. When describing their own work, judges often say that they are neutral legal umpires. When describing opposing judges, partisan political actors regularly denounce them for undermining democratic values and imposing their own preferences. Scholars have long told a third story, in which judges are political actors who spend more time conforming to rather than challenging the democratic will. Drawing on a sweeping survey of litigation regarding abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, and gun rights during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama eras, Keck argues that each of these stories captures part of the significance of courts in polarized times, but that each, standing alone, is more misleading than helpful. In polarized America, advocates on both the left and the right engage in litigation more-or-less constantly to achieve their ends. But, Keck shows, neither side has consistently won, or consistently lost. Instead, judges have responded to this unending litigation, at different times and in different ways, as umpires, as activist tyrants, and as followers of whoever won the last election. For example, federal courts are indeed polarized on partisan lines, but across all four issues, this polarization is less extreme on the courts than it is in Congress. As for the "undemocratic judge story," here too Keck's findings are hardly black and white. While some decisions can be characterized as thwarting the popular will, there are just as many in which the judges and the public seem to be pushing in the same direction. Ultimately Keck concludes that the time to fear courts is not when they start protecting rights, but when they start protecting only or mostly those rights favored by Republicans (or by Democrats). Keck's rigorous analysis of these judicial controversies is sure to engender interest both inside and outside the academy and be hailed as a landmark study of judicial review., When 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.

LC Classification NumberKF8775.K43 2014