First published 2006
Jeffrey Rosen takes on two opposing camps in American legal thought. Critics blast federal judges as antidemocratic activists who ignore mainstream values. Defenders counter that judges must serve as lone guardians of American principles, placing constitutional ideals above popular opinion. Rosen rejects both views. He argues that federal courts have historically reflected mainstream American thinking, from John Marshall's era to today. The Supreme Court succeeds when it defers to constitutional views held by Congress, the Presidency, and the American people. When justices stray from consensus, disaster follows. Rosen examines landmark cases involving racial equality, affirmative action, abortion, gay rights, the right to die, electoral disputes, and wartime civil liberties. He shows that widely criticized decisions like Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade bucked mainstream opinion, while celebrated rulings like Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. Board of Education aligned with popular constitutional understanding. The judiciary works best when it identifies constitutional principles most Americans accept and enforces them as fundamental law.
Genres: social-science, political-science, non-fiction, law, academic, american-history
Vibes: thought-provoking
Tropes: academic-debate, opposing-views
Setting: America
Period: 20th-century, 21st-century
256 pages · Hardcover · Oxford University Press