Cargando…

Reconsidering judicial finality : why the Supreme Court is not the last word on the Constitution /

Federal judges, legal scholars, pundits, and reporters frequently describe the Supreme Court as the final word on the meaning of the Constitution. The historical record presents an entirely different picture. A close and revealing reading of that record, from 1789 to the present day, Reconsidering J...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Clasificación:Libro Electrónico
Autor principal: Fisher, Louis (Autor)
Formato: Electrónico eBook
Idioma:Inglés
Publicado: Lawrence, Kansas : University Press of Kansas, [2019]
Temas:
Acceso en línea:Texto completo

MARC

LEADER 00000cam a2200000 i 4500
001 JSTOR_on1122905264
003 OCoLC
005 20231005004200.0
006 m o d
007 cr cnu---unuuu
008 190128t20192019ksu ob 001 0 eng d
040 |a P@U  |b eng  |e rda  |e pn  |c P@U  |d OCLCO  |d YDX  |d JSTOR  |d YDXIT  |d OCLCF  |d K6U  |d OCLCQ  |d OCLCO  |d IAI  |d UKAHL  |d OCLCO  |d OCLCQ  |d OCLCO 
019 |a 1122800864  |a 1125966545  |a 1129343823 
020 |a 9780700628117  |q (electronic book) 
020 |a 0700628118  |q (electronic book) 
020 |z 9780700628100 
020 |z 070062810X 
029 1 |a AU@  |b 000066179542 
029 1 |a AU@  |b 000074026344 
035 |a (OCoLC)1122905264  |z (OCoLC)1122800864  |z (OCoLC)1125966545  |z (OCoLC)1129343823 
037 |a 22573/ctvqnsn8k  |b JSTOR 
043 |a n-us--- 
050 4 |a KF8748  |b .F57 2019eb 
072 7 |a POL  |x 040030  |2 bisacsh 
072 7 |a POL  |x 022000  |2 bisacsh 
072 7 |a HIS  |x 036000  |2 bisacsh 
082 0 4 |a 347.73/12  |2 23 
049 |a UAMI 
100 1 |a Fisher, Louis,  |e author. 
245 1 0 |a Reconsidering judicial finality :  |b why the Supreme Court is not the last word on the Constitution /  |c Louis Fisher. 
264 1 |a Lawrence, Kansas :  |b University Press of Kansas,  |c [2019] 
264 4 |c ©2019 
300 |a 1 online resource (xvii, 262 pages) 
336 |a text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a computer  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a online resource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
504 |a Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 
505 0 |a Early claims of judicial finality -- Selections by Chief Justice Hughes -- Rights of blacks -- Rights of women -- Regulating commerce -- The sole-organ doctrine -- Privacy rights -- Religious liberty -- Japanese-American cases -- State secrets privilege -- Legislative vetoes -- Campaign finance. 
520 |a Federal judges, legal scholars, pundits, and reporters frequently describe the Supreme Court as the final word on the meaning of the Constitution. The historical record presents an entirely different picture. A close and revealing reading of that record, from 1789 to the present day, Reconsidering Judicial Finality reminds us of the 'unalterable fact, ' as Chief Justice Rehnquist once remarked, 'that our judicial system, like the human beings who administer it, is fallible.' And a Court inevitably prone to miscalculation and error, as this book clearly demonstrates, cannot have the incontrovertible last word on constitutional questions. In this deeply researched, sharply reasoned work of legal myth-busting, constitutional scholar Louis Fisher explains how constitutional disputes are settled by all three branches of government, and by the general public, with the Supreme Court often playing a secondary role. The Court's decisions have, of course, been challenged and reversed in numerous cases--involving slavery, civil rights, child labor legislation, Japanese internment during World War II, abortion, and religious liberty. What Fisher shows us on a case-by-case basis is how the elected branches, scholars, and American public regularly press policies contrary to Court rulings--and regularly prevail, although the process might sometimes take decades. From the common misreading of Marbury v. Madison, to the mistaken understanding of the Supreme Court as the trusted guardian of individual rights, to the questionable assumptions of the Court's decision in Citizens United, Fisher's work charts the distance and the difference between the Court as the ultimate arbiter in constitutional matters and the judgment of history. The verdict of Reconsidering Judicial Finality is clear: to treat the Supreme Court's nine justices as democracy's last hope or as dangerous activists undermining democracy is to vest them with undue significance. The Constitution belongs to all three branches of government--and, finally, to the American people. 
588 0 |a Online resource; title from digital title page (viewed on October 28, 2019). 
590 |a JSTOR  |b Books at JSTOR All Purchased 
590 |a JSTOR  |b Books at JSTOR Demand Driven Acquisitions (DDA) 
610 1 0 |a United States.  |b Supreme Court. 
610 1 6 |a États-Unis.  |b Supreme Court. 
610 1 7 |a United States.  |b Supreme Court.  |2 fast  |0 (OCoLC)fst00529481 
650 0 |a Political questions and judicial power  |z United States. 
650 0 |a Judicial power  |z United States. 
650 0 |a Constitutional law  |z United States. 
650 6 |a Politique et pouvoir judiciaire  |z États-Unis. 
650 6 |a Pouvoir judiciaire  |z États-Unis. 
650 7 |a POLITICAL SCIENCE  |x American Government  |x Judicial Branch.  |2 bisacsh 
650 7 |a Constitutional law.  |2 fast  |0 (OCoLC)fst00875797 
650 7 |a Judicial power.  |2 fast  |0 (OCoLC)fst00984696 
650 7 |a Political questions and judicial power.  |2 fast  |0 (OCoLC)fst01069674 
651 7 |a United States.  |2 fast  |0 (OCoLC)fst01204155 
776 0 8 |i Print version:  |a Fisher, Louis.  |t Reconsidering judicial finality.  |d Lawrence, Kansas : University Press of Kansas, [2019]  |z 9780700628100  |w (DLC) 2019004094  |w (OCoLC)1084632283 
856 4 0 |u https://jstor.uam.elogim.com/stable/10.2307/j.ctvqmp2sk  |z Texto completo 
938 |a Askews and Holts Library Services  |b ASKH  |n AH39495245 
938 |a Project MUSE  |b MUSE  |n muse74522 
938 |a YBP Library Services  |b YANK  |n 16482685 
994 |a 92  |b IZTAP