Synopses & Reviews
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 Courtand#8217;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 Courtand#8217;s Republican appointees, who voted to strike down the statute in its entirety. Still others argued that the ACAand#8217;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 toand#151;rather than challengeand#151;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 judgesand#8217; claims, actual legal decisions are not the politically neutral products of disembodied legal texts. But neither are judges and#147;tyrants in robes,and#8221; 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.
Review
Choice Outstanding Academic Title, 2006 Choice
Review
Choice Outstanding Academic Title, 2006(Choice, Jan 1 2006 )
Review
“Superb. A thoughtful, comprehensive, and balanced account of the rise of modern conservative activism in the United States Supreme Court. Kecks The Most Activist Supreme Court in History is both an indispensable history of post-New Deal constitutional theory and an impressive ‘new institutionalist analysis of recent constitutional change. It should be essential reading for anyone interested in American constitutionalism or Supreme Court politics.”<\#209>Howard Gillman, author of The Votes That Counted Mark Graber, author of Transforming Free Speech: The Ambiguous Legacy of Civi
Review
"Keck makes a compelling case for the Rehnquist's Court's very high level of judicial activism. I agree that for too long judicial activism has been equated with liberal judicial decisions. His book makes a clear statement that the same Court may issue both liberal activist decisions and conservative activist decisions. . . . I would recommend [the book] for general courses on the Supreme Court, the judicial system, or American politics." Choice
Review
"Provocative."—Jeffrey Rosen,
New Republic --Jeffrey Rosen
Review
"Provocative."—Jeffrey Rosen,
New Republic Jeffrey Rosen
Review
"A welcome and extremely timely book. . . . Because Professor Keck writes from a political science perspective, his book provides a broader dimension than others which have analyzed the Rehnquist Court in largely legalistic terms. Thus, he shows us how decisions of the Supreme Court are not easily separated from the broader trends of political and social change. . . . If one is looking to understand the relationship between constitutional decision-making and the political and social forces which may influence that process, especially in the immediate aftermath of the 2004 presidential election and with the looming prospect of vacancies on the Court, Professor Keck's book more than amply fills the bill." New Republic
Review
"[Keck] places the decisions of the Supreme Court in broad historical perspective and shows how the recent conservative activism of the Rehnquist Court fits within an unbroken activist tradition. . . . If you read just one book on the history of the modern Supreme Court, this should probably be the one."
William E. Hellerstein - New York Law Journal
Review
"Keck devastates claims that contemporary conservatives on the federal bench have no judicial agenda other than to return control over basic polity questions to elected officials." Craig Emmert - Law and Politics
Review
“The Most Activist Supreme Court in History is far more detailed and theoretically rich than existing commentary. Keck has written what I believe will be recognized as the best place to begin a realistic debate on the merits of Rehnquist Court jurisprudence.”<\#209>Mark Graber, author of Transforming Free Speech: The Ambiguous Legacy of Civil Libertarianism Mark A. Graber - AR Reivews in Advance
Review
"Provocative." Jeffrey Rosen
Review
and#8220;This is a robust, measured, and ultimately very persuasive book that places judicial review in the United States in context, insistingand#8212;and providing compelling evidence to supportand#8212;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.and#8221;
Review
"Keck explores litigation surrounding some of today's most contentious issuesand#8212;gay rights, abortion, affirmative action, and gun rights. In doing so, he demonstrates that judicial decisions on these topics are part ofand#8212;rather than antithetical toand#8212;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 texturedand#8212;and ultimately more realisticand#8212;picture of the role of courts and litigation today."
Review
"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."
Review
andquot;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 judgesandrsquo; claims, actual legal decisions are not the politically neutral products of disembodied legal texts. But neither are judges and#39;tyrants in robes,and#39; 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.andquot;
Synopsis
When conservatives took control of the federal judiciary in the 1980s, it was widely assumed that they would reverse the landmark rights-protecting precedents set by the Warren Court and replace them with a broad commitment to judicial restraint. Instead, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice William Rehnquist has reaffirmed most of those liberal decisions while creating its own brand of conservative judicial activism.
Ranging from 1937 to the present, The Most Activist Supreme Court in History traces the legal and political forces that have shaped the modern Court. Thomas M. Keck argues that the tensions within modern conservatism have produced a court that exercises its own power quite actively, on behalf of both liberal and conservative ends. Despite the long-standing conservative commitment to restraint, the justices of the Rehnquist Court have stepped in to settle divisive political conflicts over abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, presidential elections, and much more. Keck focuses in particular on the role of Justices O'Connor and Kennedy, whose deciding votes have shaped this uncharacteristically activist Court.
About the Author
Thomas M. Keck is the Michael O. Sawyer Chair of Constitutional Law and Politics at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He is the author of The Most Activist Supreme Court in History, also published by the University of Chicago Press.
Table of Contents
List of TablesPrefaceIntroduction: The Supreme Court and Modern Judicial Conservatism
Part I. The Roots of Modern Judicial Conservatism, 1937-19691. The New Deal Revolution and the Reconstruction of Constitutional Law, 1937-19492. Frankfurter's Failure: The Rise and Decline of Judicial Self-Restraint, 1949-19623. The Warren Court and Its Critics, 1962-1969
Part II: The Court and the Conservative Turn in American Politics, 1969-19944. The Nixon Court and the Conservative Turn, 1969-19805. The Reagan Court and the Conservative Ascendance, 1980-1994
Part III: The Rehnquist Court and the Splintering of Judicial Conservatism, 1994-20036. Activism and Restraint on the Rehnquist Court7. Law and Politics on the Rehnquist CourtConclusion: Modern Conservatism and Judicial PowerNotesCases CitedReferencesIndex
CITATION: "[Keck] places the decisions of the Supreme Court in broad historical perspective and shows how the recent conservative activism of the Rehnquist Court fits within an unbroken activist tradition. . . . If you read just one book on the history of the modern Supreme Court, this should probably be the one."
(Choice)
CITATION: Choice Outstanding Academic Title, 2006(Choice, Jan 1 2006 )
CITATION: "Keck makes a compelling case for the Rehnquist's Court's very high level of judicial activism. I agree that for too long judicial activism has been equated with liberal judicial decisions. His book makes a clear statement that the same Court may issue both liberal activist decisions and conservative activist decisions. . . . I would recommend [the book] for general courses on the Supreme Court, the judicial system, or American politics."(Craig Emmert, Law and Politics)
CITATION: "Provocative."-Jeffrey Rosen, New Republic
(Jeffrey Rosen, New Republic, Nov 8 2004 )
CITATION: "A welcome and extremely timely book. . . . Because Professor Keck writes from a political science perspective, his book provides a broader dimension than others which have analyzed the Rehnquist Court in largely legalistic terms. Thus, he shows us how decisions of the Supreme Court are not easily separated from the broader trends of political and social change. . . . If one is looking to understand the relationship between constitutional decision-making and the political and social forces which may influence that process, especially in the immediate aftermath of the 2004 presidential election and with the looming prospect of vacancies on the Court, Professor Keck's book more than amply fills the bill."-New York Law Journal
(William E. Hellerstein, New York Law Journal, Dec 7 2004 )
CITATION: "Keck devastates claims that contemporary conservatives on the federal bench have no judicial agenda other than to return control over basic polity questions to elected officials."(Mark A. Graber, AR Reivews in Advance)