The Myth of Judicial Activism: Making Sense of Supreme Court Decisions

Front Cover
Yale University Press, 2006 - Law - 262 pages
0 Reviews
This carefully considered book is a welcome addition to the debate over "judicial activism.” Constitutional scholar Kermit Roosevelt III offers an elegantly simple way to resolve the heated discord between conservatives, who argue that the Constitution is immutable, and progressives, who insist that it is a living document that must be reinterpreted in new cultural contexts so that its meaning evolves. Roosevelt uses plain language and compelling examples to explain how the Constitution can be both a constant and an organic document.
Recent years have witnessed an increasing drumbeat of complaints about judicial behavior, focusing particularly on Supreme Court decisions that critics charge are reflections of the Justices’ political preferences rather than enforcement of the Constitution. The author takes a balanced look at these controversial decisions through a compelling new lens of constitutional interpretation. He clarifies the task of the Supreme Court in constitutional cases, then sets out a model to describe how the Court creates doctrine to implement the meaning of the Constitution. Finally, Roosevelt uses this model to show which decisions can be justified as legitimate and which cannot.

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.


The Fallacy
What Doctrine Is For
FOUR Equal Protection Criminal Procedure
Kelo v City of New London
G H T The Establishment Clause
Roper and Atkins
Part IVIllegitimacy
TWELVE Reviled Decisions

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

References to this book

About the author (2006)

Kermit Roosevelt is assistant professor, University of Pennsylvania Law School, and author of the novel In the Shadow of the Law. He lives in Philadelphia.

Bibliographic information