The Case Against the Supreme Court
-
- USD 8.99
-
- USD 8.99
Descripción editorial
A preeminent constitutional scholar offers a hard-hitting analysis of the Supreme Court over the last two hundred years
Most Americans share the perception that the Supreme Court is objective, but Erwin Chemerinsky, one of the country’s leading constitutional lawyers, shows that this is nonsense and always has been. The Court is made up of fallible individuals who base decisions on their own biases. Today, the Roberts Court is promoting a conservative agenda under the guise of following a neutral methodology, but notorious decisions, such as Bush vs. Gore and Citizens United, are hardly recent exceptions. This devastating book details, case by case, how the Court has largely failed throughout American history at its most important tasks and at the most important times.
Only someone of Chemerinsky’s stature and breadth of knowledge could take on this controversial topic. Powerfully arguing for term limits for justices and a reassessment of the institution as a whole, The Case Against the Supreme Court is a timely and important book that will be widely read and cited for decades to come.
PUBLISHERS WEEKLY
Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar from the University of California, Irvine, offers an accessible, refreshingly candid, and no-holds-barred indictment of the Supreme Court. Chemerinsky crafts his argument based on past Court decisions that are universally deemed to be on the wrong side of history, and on a stinging analysis of the more recent judgments of the Rehnquist and Roberts Courts. His thesis is built on the analysis of an array of Court opinions that address fundamental issues in American society. Chemerinsky's own opinions are direct and unambiguous. Among a long list of issues, he finds the Court wanting in its approach to the problems of racial equality and protecting the rights of citizens in times of crisis, and condemns the Roberts Court's rulings on voting rights, campaign finance, and the rights of citizens to sue for redress for governmental misconduct. Chemerinsky's evaluation of the famously liberal Warren Supreme Court is particularly interesting for his claim that "it could have and should have done so much more." He is sensitive to the charge that his (correctly) perceived liberal bias will undercut his thesis and responds that many of the criticized opinions are wrong from any perspective, liberal or conservative. An insightful analysis that advances much to consider, especially in light of recent controversial opinions.
