@article{1479824,
      recid = {1479824},
      author = {Kloppenberg, Lisa, },
      title = {Playing it Safe : How the Supreme Court Sidesteps Hard  Cases and Stunts the Development of Law /},
      pages = {1 online resource},
      abstract = {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.},
      url = {http://library.usi.edu/record/1479824},
}