The Roberts Court, seven years old, sits at the center of a constitutional maelstrom. Through four landmark decisions, Marcia Coyle, one of the most prestigious experts on the Supreme Court, reveals the fault lines in the conservative-dominated Court led by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. Seven minutes after President Obama put his signature to a landmark national health care insurance program, a lawyer in the office of Florida GOP attorney general Bill McCollum hit a computer key, sparking a legal challenge to the new law that would eventually reach the nation’s highest court. Health care is only the most visible and recent front in a battle over the meaning and scope of the U.S. Constitution. The battleground is the United States Supreme Court, and one of the most skilled, insightful, and trenchant of its observers takes us close up to watch it in action. Marcia Coyle’s brilliant inside account of the High Court captures four landmark decisions—concerning health care, money in elections, guns at home, and race in schools. Coyle examines how those cases began—the personalities and conflicts that catapulted them onto the national scene—and how they ultimately exposed the great divides among the justices, such as the originalists versus the pragmatists on guns and the Second Amendment, and corporate speech versus human speech in the controversial Citizens United campaign case. Most dramatically, her analysis shows how dedicated conservative lawyers and groups are strategizing to find cases and crafting them to bring up the judicial road to the Supreme Court with an eye on a receptive conservative majority. The Roberts Court offers a ringside seat at the struggle to lay down the law of the land.
Pathways to the U.S. Supreme Court is a quantitative-historical recapitulation of the routes taken to the US Supreme Court by the 112 Justices who were confirmed by the Senate and served, and the 28 others whose candidacies for confirmation were defeated, withdrawn, or declined.
Widely acclaimed at the time of its publication, the life story of the most controversial, volatile, misunderstood provision of the Bill of Rights. At a time of increasing gun violence in America, Waldman’s book provoked a wide range of discussion. This book looks at history to provide some surprising, illuminating answers. The Amendment was written to calm public fear that the new national government would crush the state militias made up of all (white) adult men—who were required to own a gun to serve. Waldman recounts the raucous public debate that has surrounded the amendment from its inception to the present. As the country spread to the Western frontier, violence spread too. But through it all, gun control was abundant. In the twentieth century, with Prohibition and gangsterism, the first federal control laws were passed. In all four separate times the Supreme Court ruled against a constitutional right to own a gun. The present debate picked up in the 1970s—part of a backlash to the liberal 1960s and a resurgence of libertarianism. A newly radicalized NRA entered the campaign to oppose gun control and elevate the status of an obscure constitutional provision. In 2008, in a case that reached the Court after a focused drive by conservative lawyers, the US Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects an individual right to gun ownership. Famous for his theory of “originalism,” Justice Antonin Scalia twisted it in this instance to base his argument on contemporary conditions. In The Second Amendment: A Biography, Michael Waldman shows that our view of the amendment is set, at each stage, not by a pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of political advocacy and public agitation.
An examination of the initial years of the Roberts Court and the intellectual battle between Roberts and Kagan for leadership. When John Roberts was appointed chief justice of the Supreme Court, he said he would act as an umpire. Instead, his Court is reshaping legal precedent through decisions unmistakably—though not always predictably—determined by politics as much as by law, on a Court almost perfectly politically divided. Harvard Law School professor and constitutional law expert Mark Tushnet clarifies the lines of conflict and what is at stake on the Supreme Court as it hangs “in the balance” between its conservatives and its liberals. Clear and deeply knowledgeable on both points of law and the Court’s key players, Tushnet offers a nuanced and surprising examination of the initial years of the Roberts Court. Covering the legal philosophies that have informed decisions on major cases such as the Affordable Care Act, the political structures behind Court appointments, and the face-off between John Roberts and Elena Kagan for intellectual dominance of the Court, In the Balance is a must-read for anyone looking for fresh insight into the Court’s impact on the everyday lives of Americans.
The Affordable Care Act debate was one of the most important and most public examinations of the Constitution in our history. At the forefront of that debate were the bloggers of the Volokh Conspiracy who, from before the law was even passed, engaged in a spirited, erudite, and accessible discussion of the legal issues involved in the case.
Published every September in celebration of Constitution Day, the Cato Supreme Court Review brings together leading legal scholars to analyze the most important cases of the Court's most recent term. It is the first scholarly review to appear after the term's end and the only on to critique the court from a Madisonian perspective.
A course on constitutional law and civil liberties can be and is nothing less than an extended inquiry into the meaning of America. American Constitutional Law: Volume 1 Governmental Powers and Democracy, newly revised by Donald P. Kommers, John E. Finn, and Gary J. Jacobsohn, is a casebook made for such an inquiry. True to the liberal arts tradition from which it emerges, it goes beyond the facts and rulings of the great cases in American constitutional law to engage important issues of political theory and the nature of our constitutional democracy. Although the focus is on American constitutional law, Kommers, Finn, and Jacobsohn break new ground by incorporating comparative materials that enrich the study of the American Constitution by challenging the reader to assess American constitutional values in light of other traditions and understandings of constitutional governance. In an era of constitutional globalization, this new edition of a distinguished text is essential to an appreciation of tradition and diversity.Volume 1 focuses on governmental structures and relationships and includes a new chapter on elections and political representation.
In this widely acclaimed landmark study, Joan Hoff illustrates how women remain second- class citizens under the current legal system and questions whether the continued pursuit of equality based on a one-size-fits-all vision of traditional individual rights is really what will most improve conditions for women in America as they prepare for the twenty-first century. Concluding that equality based on liberal male ideology is no longer an adequate framework for improving women's legal status, Hoff's highly original and incisive volume calls for a demystification of legal doctrine and a reinterpretation of legal texts (including the Constitution) to create a feminist jurisprudence.
A Conservative Critique of The Supreme Court's Obamacare Ruling
Author: Sen. Mike Lee
Publisher: Simon and Schuster
Category: Political Science
An original ebook from the current US senator to Utah, explaining why Chief Justice Roberts was wrong to disregard the Constitution in making his historic and controversial healthcare decision. uring Chief Justice Roberts’s first seven terms on the Supreme Court of the United States, he distinguished himself as a fair-minded jurist and a true constitutional scholar—a man seemingly committed to the rule of law and to core constitutional principles. That hard-earned distinction was turned on its head when, on June 28, 2012, the Chief Justice—writing for a five-to-four majority in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebilius—essentially re-wrote key provisions of Obamacare in order to uphold the law, and allow it to be approved, in the face of a justified constitutional challenge. Now United States Senator Mike Lee presents a conservative critique of this controversial ruling, and explains why John Roberts in particular was wrong to vote to preserve the act. In an attempt to be perceived as fair in the mainstream media, Roberts allowed himself to be swayed by outside influences -- influences to which a Supreme Court justice is supposed to be absolutely immune. Not only that, Senator Lee explains, Roberts conceded that much of the Obamacare act was unconstitutional; yet he instructed states simply to ignore those parts, instead of recognizing that those parts made the entire act invalid. A smart, fair and evenhanded argument, Why John Roberts Was Wrong provides a definitive, concise argument against Obamacare.