Law Commons^™

The Jacksonian Makings Of The Taney Court, Mark A. Graber

Mark Graber

Many twentieth century commentators regard the willingness of Taney Court majorities to declare laws unconstitutional as proof that the justices on that tribunal adjured Jacksonian partisanship upon taking the bench. Old Republicans during the 1820s fulminated against judicial review of state legislation and sought to repeal Section 25 of the Judiciary Act of 1787, but they were apparently frustrated by a Taney Court which continued imposing contract clause and dormant commerce clause limits on state power. This paper demonstrates that Jacksonians in office supported judicial power. Jacksonian animus was more directed at McCulloch v. Maryland than either Marbury v. Madison …

Does It Really Matter? Conservative Courts In A Conservative Era, Mark A. Graber

Mark Graber

This essay explores the likelihood that conservative federal courts in the near future will be agents of conservative social change. In particular, the paper assesses whether conservative justices on some issues will support more conservative policies than conservative elected officials are presently willing to enact and whether such judicial decisions will influence public policy. My primary conclusion is that, as long as conservatives remain politically ascendant in the elected branches of government, the Roberts Court is likely to influence American politics at the margins. The new conservative judicial majority is likely to be more libertarian than conservative majorities in the …

Mistretta Versus Marbury: The Foundations Of Judicial Review, Maxwell L. Stearns

Maxwell L. Stearns

No abstract provided.

What's Wrong With Judicial Supremacy? What's Right About Judicial Review?, Robert Lipkin

Robert Justin Lipkin

Skepticism concerning the legitimacy of judicial review typically occurs without distinguishing between judicial review and judicial supremacy. The former gives the Court a say in evaluating the constitutionality of legislation and other government conduct. The latter gives the Court the final say over these matters. This Article defends the Court's role in judicial review but rejects the practice of judicial supremacy. The Article first critically examines some of the more important attempts to justify judicial supremacy and finds them wanting. It then explains why judicial review, as the practice of applying American political philosophical concepts such as federalism, the separation …

Stripping Judicial Review During Immigration Reform: The Certificate Of Reviewability, Jill E. Family

Jill E. Family