Playing it Safe : How the Supreme Court Sidesteps Hard Cases and Stunts the Development of Law / Lisa Kloppenberg.
2001
KF8748 .K58 2001
Linked e-resources
Linked Resource
Online Access
Details
Title
Playing it Safe : How the Supreme Court Sidesteps Hard Cases and Stunts the Development of Law / Lisa Kloppenberg.
Author
Kloppenberg, Lisa, author.
ISBN
9780814748664
Published
New York, NY : New York University Press, [2001]
Copyright
©2001
Language
English
Language Note
In English.
Description
1 online resource
Call Number
KF8748 .K58 2001
Dewey Decimal Classification
347.7326
Summary
It is one of the unspoken truths of the American judicial system that courts go out of their way to avoid having to decide important and controversial issues. Even the Supreme Courtfrom which the entire nation seeks guidancefrequently engages in transparent tactics to avoid difficult, politically sensitive cases. The Court's reliance on avoidance has been inconsistent and at times politically motivated. For example, liberal New Deal Justices, responding to the activism of a conservative Court, promoted deference to Congress and the presidency to protect the Court from political pressure. Likewise, as the Warren Court recognized new constitutional rights, conservative judges and critics praised avoidance as a foundational rule of judicial restraint. And as conservative Justices have constituted the majority on the Court in recent years, many liberals and moderates have urged avoidance, for fear of disagreeable verdicts. By sharing the stories of litigants who struggled unsuccessfully to raise before the Supreme Court constitutional matters of the utmost importance from the 1970s-1990s, Playing it Safe argues that judges who fail to exercise their power in hard cases in effect abdicate their constitutional responsibility when it is needed most, and in so doing betray their commitment to neutrality. Lisa Kloppenberg demonstrates how the Court often avoids socially sensitive cases, such as those involving racial and ethnic discrimination, gender inequalities, abortion restrictions, sexual orientation discrimination, and environmental abuses. In the process, the Court ducks its responsibility to check the more politically responsive branches of government when "majority rule" pushes the boundaries of constitutional law. The Court has not used these malleable doctrines evenhandedly: it has actively shielded states from liability and national oversight, and aggressively expanded standing requirements to limit the role of federal courts.
Access Note
Access limited to authorized users.
System Details Note
Mode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.
Digital File Characteristics
text file PDF
Source of Description
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 29. Jul 2022)
Series
Critical America ; 49
Available in Other Form
print 9780814747407
Linked Resources
Online Access
Record Appears in
Online Resources > Ebooks
All Resources
All Resources
Table of Contents
Frontmatter
Contents
Acknowledgments
Introduction
1. The Court Avoids Scrutinizing "Official English" Mandate
2. The Court Grapples with Congress and Standing Hurdles in Environmental Cases
3. The Court Uses Standing to Discourage Redress for Racial Wrongs
4. Avoiding Selected Affirmative Action Challenges
5. Coming Out of the Constitutional Closet
6. Avoiding Gender Equality
7. The Court's Aggressive Expansion of States' Rights
Conclusion: Looking toward the Future: A Presumption against Avoidance
Notes
Index
About the Author
Contents
Acknowledgments
Introduction
1. The Court Avoids Scrutinizing "Official English" Mandate
2. The Court Grapples with Congress and Standing Hurdles in Environmental Cases
3. The Court Uses Standing to Discourage Redress for Racial Wrongs
4. Avoiding Selected Affirmative Action Challenges
5. Coming Out of the Constitutional Closet
6. Avoiding Gender Equality
7. The Court's Aggressive Expansion of States' Rights
Conclusion: Looking toward the Future: A Presumption against Avoidance
Notes
Index
About the Author