001479824 000__ 05593nam\a22008415i\4500 001479824 001__ 1479824 001479824 003__ DE-B1597 001479824 005__ 20231026035112.0 001479824 006__ m\\\\\o\\d\\\\\\\\ 001479824 007__ cr\un\nnnunnun 001479824 008__ 220729t20012001nyu\\\\\o\\d\z\\\\\\eng\d 001479824 020__ $$a9780814748664 001479824 035__ $$a(DE-B1597)547245 001479824 040__ $$aDE-B1597$$beng$$cDE-B1597$$erda 001479824 0410_ $$aeng 001479824 044__ $$anyu$$cUS-NY 001479824 050_4 $$aKF8748 .K58 2001 001479824 072_7 $$aLAW052000$$2bisacsh 001479824 08204 $$a347.7326 001479824 1001_ $$aKloppenberg, Lisa, $$eauthor.$$4aut$$4http://id.loc.gov/vocabulary/relators/aut 001479824 24510 $$aPlaying it Safe :$$bHow the Supreme Court Sidesteps Hard Cases and Stunts the Development of Law /$$cLisa Kloppenberg. 001479824 264_1 $$aNew York, NY : $$bNew York University Press, $$c[2001] 001479824 264_4 $$c©2001 001479824 300__ $$a1 online resource 001479824 336__ $$atext$$btxt$$2rdacontent 001479824 337__ $$acomputer$$bc$$2rdamedia 001479824 338__ $$aonline resource$$bcr$$2rdacarrier 001479824 347__ $$atext file$$bPDF$$2rda 001479824 4900_ $$aCritical America ;$$v49 001479824 50500 $$tFrontmatter -- $$tContents -- $$tAcknowledgments -- $$tIntroduction -- $$t1. The Court Avoids Scrutinizing "Official English" Mandate -- $$t2. The Court Grapples with Congress and Standing Hurdles in Environmental Cases -- $$t3. The Court Uses Standing to Discourage Redress for Racial Wrongs -- $$t4. Avoiding Selected Affirmative Action Challenges -- $$t5. Coming Out of the Constitutional Closet -- $$t6. Avoiding Gender Equality -- $$t7. The Court's Aggressive Expansion of States' Rights -- $$tConclusion: Looking toward the Future: A Presumption against Avoidance -- $$tNotes -- $$tIndex -- $$tAbout the Author 001479824 506__ $$aAccess limited to authorized users. 001479824 520__ $$aIt 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. 001479824 538__ $$aMode of access: Internet via World Wide Web. 001479824 546__ $$aIn English. 001479824 5880_ $$aDescription based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 29. Jul 2022) 001479824 650_0 $$aCertiorari$$zUnited States$$xHistory. 001479824 650_0 $$aPolitical questions and judicial power$$zUnited States$$xHistory. 001479824 650_7 $$aLAW / Jurisprudence.$$2bisacsh 001479824 655_0 $$aElectronic books 001479824 77308 $$iTitle is part of eBook package:$$dDe Gruyter$$tNew York University Press Backlist eBook-Package 2000-2013$$z9783110706444 001479824 7760_ $$cprint$$z9780814747407 001479824 852__ $$bebk 001479824 85640 $$3De Gruyter$$uhttps://univsouthin.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://www.degruyter.com/isbn/9780814748664$$zOnline Access 001479824 909CO $$ooai:library.usi.edu:1479824$$pGLOBAL_SET 001479824 912__ $$a978-3-11-070644-4 New York University Press Backlist eBook-Package 2000-2013$$c2000$$d2013 001479824 912__ $$aEBA_BACKALL 001479824 912__ $$aEBA_CL_LAEC 001479824 912__ $$aEBA_EBACKALL 001479824 912__ $$aEBA_EBKALL 001479824 912__ $$aEBA_ECL_LAEC 001479824 912__ $$aEBA_EEBKALL 001479824 912__ $$aEBA_ESSHALL 001479824 912__ $$aEBA_ESTMALL 001479824 912__ $$aEBA_PPALL 001479824 912__ $$aEBA_SSHALL 001479824 912__ $$aEBA_STMALL 001479824 912__ $$aGBV-deGruyter-alles 001479824 912__ $$aPDA11SSHE 001479824 912__ $$aPDA12STME 001479824 912__ $$aPDA13ENGE 001479824 912__ $$aPDA17SSHEE 001479824 912__ $$aPDA18STMEE 001479824 912__ $$aPDA5EBK 001479824 980__ $$aBIB 001479824 980__ $$aEBOOK 001479824 982__ $$aEbook 001479824 983__ $$aOnline