LEADER 04461nam 22007094a 450 001 9910809022703321 005 20200520144314.0 010 $a1-282-08705-3 010 $a9786612087059 010 $a1-4008-2628-4 024 7 $a10.1515/9781400826285 035 $a(CKB)1000000000756254 035 $a(EBL)445425 035 $a(OCoLC)355696257 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000257727 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11215226 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000257727 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10253579 035 $a(PQKB)11412402 035 $a(MdBmJHUP)muse36206 035 $a(DE-B1597)446431 035 $a(OCoLC)979578333 035 $a(OCoLC)984643727 035 $a(DE-B1597)9781400826285 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL445425 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10284111 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL208705 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC445425 035 $a(EXLCZ)991000000000756254 100 $a20031024d2004 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 00$aThat eminent tribunal $ejudicial supremacy and the constitution /$fChristopher Wolfe, editor 205 $aCourse Book 210 $aPrinceton, N.J. $cPrinceton University Press$dc2004 215 $a1 online resource (249 p.) 225 1 $aNew forum books 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a0-691-11667-9 311 $a0-691-11668-7 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references and index. 327 $aIs the Constitution whatever the winners say it is? / Gerard V. Bradley -- Nationhood and judicial supremacy / Robert F. Nagel -- Casey at the bat--taking another swing at Planned Parenthood v. Casey / Michael Zuckert -- Antijural jurisprudence : the vices of the judges enter a new stage / Hadley Arkes -- Judicial power and the withering of civil society / George W. Liebmann -- The academy, the courts, and the culture of rationalism / Steven D. Smith -- Judicial moral expertise and real-world constraints on judicial moral reasoning / Jack Wade Nowlin -- Toward a more balanced history of the Supreme Court / Michael W. McConnell -- Judicial review and republican government / Jeremy Waldron -- The Casey Five versus the Federalism Five : supreme legislator or prudent umpire? / Keith E. Whittington -- The Rhenquist Court and "conservative judicial activism" / Christopher Wolfe. 330 $aThe role of the United States Supreme Court has been deeply controversial throughout American history. Should the Court undertake the task of guarding a wide variety of controversial and often unenumerated rights? Or should it confine itself to enforcing specific constitutional provisions, leaving other issues (even those of rights) to the democratic process? That Eminent Tribunal brings together a distinguished group of legal scholars and political scientists who argue that the Court's power has exceeded its appropriate bounds, and that sound republican principles require greater limits on that power. They reach this conclusion by an interesting variety of paths, and despite varied political convictions. Some of the essays debate the explicit claims to constitutional authority laid out by the Supreme Court itself in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and similar cases, and others focus on the defenses of judicial authority found commonly in legal scholarship (e.g., the allegedly superior moral reasoning of judges, or judges' supposed track record of superior political decision making). The authors find these arguments wanting and contend that the principles of republicanism and the contemporary form of judicial review exercised by the Supreme Court are fundamentally incompatible. The contributors include Hadley Arkes, Gerard V. Bradley, George Liebmann, Michael McConnell, Robert F. Nagel, Jack Wade Nowlin, Steven D. Smith, Jeremy Waldron, Keith E. Whittington, Christopher Wolfe, and Michael P. Zuckert. 410 0$aNew forum books. 606 $aJudicial power$zUnited States 606 $aJudge-made law$zUnited States 606 $aConstitutional law$zUnited States 615 0$aJudicial power 615 0$aJudge-made law 615 0$aConstitutional law 676 $a347.73/12 701 $aWolfe$b Christopher$0529215 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910809022703321 996 $aThat eminent tribunal$94107021 997 $aUNINA