We like to think of judges and justices as making decisions based on the facts and the law. But to what extent do jurists decide cases in accordance with their own preexisting philosophy of law, and what specific ideological assumptions account for their decisions?
Stephen E. Gottlieb adopts a unique perspective on the decision-making of Supreme Court justices, blending and re-characterizing traditional accounts of political philosophy in a way that plausibly explains many of the justices' voting patterns.
A seminal study of the Rehnquist Court, Morality Imposed...
We like to think of judges and justices as making decisions based on the facts and the law. But to what extent do jurists decide cases in accordanc...
The United States Supreme Court's relegation of many rights to definition under state constitutional law, combined with the tendency of recent administrations to entrust the states with the task of preserving individual rights, is increasingly making state constitutions the arena where the battles to preserve the rights to life, liberty, property, due process, and equal protection of laws must be fought.
Ranging in time from the late 1700s to the late 1900s, "Toward a Usable Past" offers a series of case studies that examine the protection afforded individual rights by state...
The United States Supreme Court's relegation of many rights to definition under state constitutional law, combined with the tendency of recent admi...
