Study of Law and Politics - Oxford HandbooksYale University Press, Reviewed by Christopher N. Email: christopher. What is the legacy of the late Justice Antonin Scalia? According to Richard L.
Law and Politics in 2018
Finding Book Reviews of Law-Related Books and in Legal Publications
New York: Routledge, ISBN Email: jrmerriam loyola. In the first half of the 20th century, progressives criticized robust judicial review as a threat to democratic governance, whereas conservatives defended judicial intervention as a constitutionally proper means of modulating popular impulses. During this period, the American Left-Right division, particularly as applied to judicial politics and constitutional law, was defined largely according to economic issues. Whereas the Old Left rejected robust judicial review because the Old Left sought to protect large segments of the population from economic exploitation at the hands of the elite few , the New Left embraced judicial review in seeking to protect various minority groups from majority oppression. We see this ideological convergence with regard to judicial power not only in the academy but in judicial and party politics as well.
Subscribe to I·CONnect
What shapes the role of constitutional courts in new democracies? What drives the rise of judicial power in emerging constitutional orders? The book offers a fascinating insight into the creation and development of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia and the judicial personalities behind its leadership, with a particular focus on the role of the founding chief justice Jimly Asshiddiqie. Importantly, it also contributes to broader debates in comparative constitutional studies on the emergence of constitutional courts and the consolidation of judicial power in new democratic orders. As Rosalind Dixon and Samuel Issacharoff describe, deferral-based techniques used by courts can be explicit or implicit. What happens to the institutional status and legitimacy of a constitutional court after the departure of a John Marshall, an Earl Warren, or a Jimly Asshiddiqie? This is a big question with which the book grapples, even if it is one it cannot fully answer.
New York: Oxford University Press, Email: mromano su. One of the most contentious debates between scholars of state courts and legal academics has been examining which institutions of judicial selection and retention better elevate accountability over independence and vice versa. Geyh replaces rigid orthodoxy with introspection to draw new attention to the debate over how to design judicial institutions; his focus on the pros and cons of both sides of the debate is valuable as it requires the reader to engage rather than isolate themselves in their own ideological bubble. What Geyh tries to do, through in-depth research into the histories of institutional change as well as engagement with countless years of empirical research, is to find the line between what we currently have evidence to support and disprove about the stigma of judicial elections, and to consider a new way forward for institutional designers concerned about the judiciary.
About LPBR. Reviews are published frequently, and readers are notified by e-mail as new ones are available. The section has a membership of almost and presently sends the Review to over 1, readers in 39 countries. The electronic medium enables us to review almost every book about the legal process and politics, to do longer reviews than are usually published, and to make the reviews available within six months of our receipt of the book. LPBR Review Essays The Law and Politics Book Review will consider for publication thematic essays that address important substantive, theoretical, or methodological issues of interest to its subscribers. An essay may rest on one or several books to develop its theme.