Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-wing Courts are Wrong for America
Most people think that the Supreme Court has a rough balance between left and right. This is a myth; in fact the justices once considered right-wing have now taken the mantle of the Court's moderates, and the liberal element has all but disappeared. Most people also think that judicial activism is solely a liberal movement. This is also a myth; since William Rehnquist was confirmed as Chief Justice in 1986, the Supreme Court has engaged in an unprecedented record of judicial activism. These two factors are feeding a movement to restore what many conservatives call "The Constitution in Exile," by which they mean the Constitution as it existed before the Roosevelt administration. Radicals in Robes explains what the restoration of this constitutional vision would mean. It would mean the end of the FCC, the SEC, the EPA, and every other federal agency that enacts regulations that have the force of law. It would mean that the clause of the First Amendment that says that Congress may make no law "respecting an establishment of religion" would be turned on its head. Marriage laws and many other familiar areas of modern life are all in the sights of this conservative movement. Radicals in Robes takes judicial philosophy out of the law schools and shows what it means when it intersects partisan politics. It pulls away the veil of rhetoric from a dangerous and radical right-wing movement and issues a strong and passionate warning about what conservatives really intend. One of the most respected legal theorists in the country, Cass R. Sunstein here issues a warning of compelling concern to us all.
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
The Constitution in Exile
Fundamentalists and Minimalists
Historys Dead Hand
Is There a Right to Privacy?
Who May Marry?
Race and Affirmative Action
Other editions - View all
abortion activist affirmative action affirmative action programs African-Americans agencies allow American Antonin Scalia approach argue argument authority believe benefits Bork campaign finance citizens claim clear Congress congressional conservative Consti Constitution in Exile constitutional law constitutionally Court’s decision defend democracy democratic discrimination dissent Due Process Clause ensure Equal Protection Clause Establishment Clause example executive branch favor federal courts federal judges forbid Fourteenth Amendment free speech freedom funda fundamentalists Ginsburg Hamdi Holmes important insist interpretation invalidate issue judgments judicial Justice Scalia Justice Thomas legislation majoritarianism meaning ment minimalism minimalists national government National Security Fundamentalism nondelegation doctrine nondelegation principles original understanding perfectionists permitted political President question racial racial segregation radical ratifiers reason regulation reject right to marry rule same-sex marriage Second Amendment sexual statute strike Supreme Court talists tion tional traditions tution unconstitutional violate vote