Show simple item record

Introduction: Is the Supreme Court Failing at Its Job, or Are We Failing at Ours?

dc.contributor.authorSherry, Suzanna
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-11T18:44:13Z
dc.date.available2018-07-11T18:44:13Z
dc.date.issued2016
dc.identifier.citation69 Vanderbilt Law Review 909 (2016)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1803/9246
dc.descriptionarticle published in a law reviewen_US
dc.description.abstractIt is a pleasure and a privilege to write an introduction to this Symposium celebrating Dean Erwin Chemerinsky's important new book, The Case Against the Supreme Court. Chemerinsky is one of the leading constitutional scholars of our time and a frequent advocate before the U.S. Supreme Court. If he thinks there is a case to be made against the Court, we should all take it very seriously indeed. Chemerinsky's thesis may be stated in a few sentences. The primary role of the Supreme Court, in his view, is to "protect the rights of minorities who cannot rely on the political process and to uphold the Constitution in the face of any repressive desires of political majorities." Canvassing the Court's performance over two centuries, he concludes, first, that it has failed dismally at those tasks. Nevertheless, he reaches two additional conclusions: he believes that we can and should expect the Court to do better, and he outlines reforms that might help it do so.en_US
dc.format.extent1 PDF (12 pages)en_US
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherVanderbilt Law Reviewen_US
dc.subjectterm limitsen_US
dc.subjectjudicial reformen_US
dc.subjectpolitics and judicial decisionmakingen_US
dc.subject.lcshConstitutional law -- United Statesen_US
dc.subject.lcshLawen_US
dc.titleIntroduction: Is the Supreme Court Failing at Its Job, or Are We Failing at Ours?en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record