Because U.S. Supreme Court justices have effective life tenure under the federal Constitution, the high court has long been viewed as a undemocratic institution in our society.The "countermajoritarian" nature of the Court has been a cause both for censure and celebration.On the one hand, the Court has been faulted for sitting as a "superlegislature," in which five (out of nine) middle-aged to elderly judges can strike down the enactments of democratically elected bodies.On the other hand, a counter-majoritarian Court has been seen as a bulwark for fundamental liberties or powerless minorities whose status should not be determined by a popular vote.Friedman's book renovates this well-rehearsed debate by challenging its core premise.Taking a broad yet detailed historical perspective, he observes that the Supreme Court is rarely out of sync with popular opinion.Under this view, both the demerits and the merits of judicial review will be dampened.The Court is not as susceptible to the charge that it is an activist institution out of touch with the polity.At the same time, it is also not as worthy of praise as an institution that can protect rights and groups from majority whims.
The book is a fascinating sociological study of the Court.It is also an important theoretical work that shows how unelected officials are held indirectly accountable to the people.Most of all, it is a call to reflect and act that is all the more effective for not coming to us as a polemic.This book argues that what we as individual citizens believe, say, and do affects the meaning of the Constitution.It addresses us all, which is why we all should read it.
Click Here to see more reviews about: The Will of the People: How Public Opinion Has Influenced the Supreme Court and Shaped the Meaning of the Constitution (Hardcover)
No comments:
Post a Comment