What do you think?
Rate this book
The Myth of Judicial Activism: Making Sense of Supreme Court Decisions
This carefully considered book is a welcome addition to the debate over “judicial activism.” Constitutional scholar Kermit Roosevelt III offers an elegantly simple way to resolve the heated discord between conservatives, who argue that the Constitution is immutable, and progressives, who insist that it is a living document that must be reinterpreted in new cultural contexts so that its meaning evolves. Roosevelt uses plain language and compelling examples to explain how the Constitution can be both a constant and an organic document.
Recent years have witnessed an increasing drumbeat of complaints about judicial behavior, focusing particularly on Supreme Court decisions that critics charge are reflections of the Justices’ political preferences rather than enforcement of the Constitution. The author takes a balanced look at these controversial decisions through a compelling new lens of constitutional interpretation. He clarifies the task of the Supreme Court in constitutional cases, then sets out a model to describe how the Court creates doctrine to implement the meaning of the Constitution. Finally, Roosevelt uses this model to show which decisions can be justified as legitimate and which cannot.
Recent years have witnessed an increasing drumbeat of complaints about judicial behavior, focusing particularly on Supreme Court decisions that critics charge are reflections of the Justices’ political preferences rather than enforcement of the Constitution. The author takes a balanced look at these controversial decisions through a compelling new lens of constitutional interpretation. He clarifies the task of the Supreme Court in constitutional cases, then sets out a model to describe how the Court creates doctrine to implement the meaning of the Constitution. Finally, Roosevelt uses this model to show which decisions can be justified as legitimate and which cannot.
272 pages, Hardcover
First published October 2, 2006
About the author
Kermit Roosevelt III
14 books79 followersKermit Roosevelt is an award-winning author whose latest book Allegiance has been called "an instant classic" by Nelson DeMille. His previous novel In the Shadow of the Law was the Christian Science Monitor Best Book of the Year, the winner of the Philadelphia Athenaeum Literary Award, the New York Times Book Review Editors' Choice Selection, and a national campus bestseller.
Roosevelt is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania. He has published in the Virginia, Michigan and Columbia law reviews, among others, and his articles have been cited twice by the Supreme Court and numerous times by state and lower federal courts.
Roosevelt is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Pennsylvania. He has published in the Virginia, Michigan and Columbia law reviews, among others, and his articles have been cited twice by the Supreme Court and numerous times by state and lower federal courts.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
June 8, 2017
I am not a law student or a lawyer, I am simply a fan. This was the perfect book for people interested in the law and reason. It is logical, sensible, and rational. It also explains the cases we hear so much of in the news, or history classes and in detail. He reviews Brown v. Board of Education, Korematsu v The United States, Lochner v. New York and even spoke more broadly on issues such as affirmative action and the 14th amendment from a legal rather than political perspective.
I first heard of this book after taking a free Coursera class on the Bill of Rights by Kermit Roosevelt III. The class was informative, but I wanted to go deeper. I have heard much of "judicial activism" simply by watching the news and wanted to know more.
I feel that I know a lot more. He made me fall more in love with the judicial branch of government and the genius behind it as well as the importance of it. He also explained the short-comings and failures of the justices and the court as well as historical cases in which the court is considered being "activist" or in the wrong.
Roosevelt explained how much thought, history and restraint the court must use when making decisions. He also explained the importance of the court in protecting the rights of under-represented people in the country. As a non-lawyer, this was fascinating for me.
The book was written in 2006, soon after the appointment of Samuel Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. I was concerned that the book would be "dated" when I read it in 2017, but that wasn't the case. It was fascinating to read about issues such as gun rights, gay marriage, free speech among others from the past and many of Roosevelt's predictions turned out to be quite correct. It was also interesting to know how things would turn out 11 years later considering the issues facing the court today. This book isn't for everyone, and it isn't a light read, although it is a short read. I would recommend it to anyone who wants a stronger understanding of the court and its role in government.
I first heard of this book after taking a free Coursera class on the Bill of Rights by Kermit Roosevelt III. The class was informative, but I wanted to go deeper. I have heard much of "judicial activism" simply by watching the news and wanted to know more.
I feel that I know a lot more. He made me fall more in love with the judicial branch of government and the genius behind it as well as the importance of it. He also explained the short-comings and failures of the justices and the court as well as historical cases in which the court is considered being "activist" or in the wrong.
Roosevelt explained how much thought, history and restraint the court must use when making decisions. He also explained the importance of the court in protecting the rights of under-represented people in the country. As a non-lawyer, this was fascinating for me.
The book was written in 2006, soon after the appointment of Samuel Alito and Chief Justice Roberts. I was concerned that the book would be "dated" when I read it in 2017, but that wasn't the case. It was fascinating to read about issues such as gun rights, gay marriage, free speech among others from the past and many of Roosevelt's predictions turned out to be quite correct. It was also interesting to know how things would turn out 11 years later considering the issues facing the court today. This book isn't for everyone, and it isn't a light read, although it is a short read. I would recommend it to anyone who wants a stronger understanding of the court and its role in government.
November 30, 2017
The Myth of Judicial Activism is a fine book. I was a bit apprehensive about the title. I was concerned that it might be too partisan but I went ahead and read it because of the subtitle.
In some ways he reminds me of John Hart Ely. The thrust of the book is that the idea that judicial activism is simply not useful in discussions about supreme court decisions. The term is most often applied by those who simply disagree with certain decisions. The author makes it clear how the term can be as easily be applied to the conservative Rehnquist court.
The book is quite accessible although the second chapter is quite technical. The simple fact of the matter is that the subject matter is more technical than simple accusations of activism. I look forward to rereading it right away. Very informative.
In some ways he reminds me of John Hart Ely. The thrust of the book is that the idea that judicial activism is simply not useful in discussions about supreme court decisions. The term is most often applied by those who simply disagree with certain decisions. The author makes it clear how the term can be as easily be applied to the conservative Rehnquist court.
The book is quite accessible although the second chapter is quite technical. The simple fact of the matter is that the subject matter is more technical than simple accusations of activism. I look forward to rereading it right away. Very informative.
January 8, 2020
Surprisingly easy to get through and interesting for quite a dry topic. Feel like I need to read the principle book it is rebutting (men in black) now. Didn't agree with all of his assessments but it was all well reasoned.
November 1, 2023
no more
Read
October 8, 2013I particularly liked this section on affirmative action, which I have edited for brevity:
"...public universities can adopt preferential admission policies for athletes, flautists, alumni children, or applicants from remote geographical regions. Racial minorities, almost alone, cannot be favored.
"Race is special because until relatively recently, American history was a long and consistent tale of oppression of racial minorities. But to turn this into an argument against affirmative action is to say that the reason racial minorities cannot be favored now is because they were discriminated against in the past."
(I should note that the author offers no opinion in the text on the issue of affirmative action, merely that certain arguments against affirmative action stemming from the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause are not compelling.)
"...public universities can adopt preferential admission policies for athletes, flautists, alumni children, or applicants from remote geographical regions. Racial minorities, almost alone, cannot be favored.
"Race is special because until relatively recently, American history was a long and consistent tale of oppression of racial minorities. But to turn this into an argument against affirmative action is to say that the reason racial minorities cannot be favored now is because they were discriminated against in the past."
(I should note that the author offers no opinion in the text on the issue of affirmative action, merely that certain arguments against affirmative action stemming from the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause are not compelling.)
December 4, 2014
A really great read for us lay people who wish to know about the workings of the Supreme Court and how it makes decision: some right and some wrong because they do not consistently follow a process. Check it out. It's a little over 100 pages and very informative. I have a better idea of how the Supreme Court renders Constitutional decisions some which have been correct by the standard of using the Constitutions different parts to justify their opinions.
July 22, 2007
In a few instances it feels like the author is overstating his case, but this is a really readable, clear-eyed analysis of some of the noise and spin surrounding the Supreme Court lately. Also just a nice overview of controversial court cases, and where the whole idea of so-called judicial activism comes from.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews