for proffessor2013

Resources for Week Four Discussion – The Supreme Court and Judicial Review

Before participating in this week’s discussion, “The Supreme Court and Judicial Review,” review these resources.

1. Read this chapter from the text, American Government:

a. Chapter 7 – The Judiciary

2. Watch the following video:

a. It’s a Free Country

Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) (2013, May 14). Episode II - It’s a free country [Series

episode]. Constitution USA with Peter Sagal. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usa-

peter-sagal/watch/its-a-free-country/

3. Select one topic and review the resource aligned to it.

TOPIC 1: What judicial philosophy should guide the Supreme Court’s exercise of judicial review? Read the

following article about this topic:

a. Annotation 13 – Article III.

FindLaw: For Legal Professionals. (n.d.). Annotation 13 – Article III. Retrieved from

http://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/annotation13.html

(This article focuses on the concept of judicial review. Specifically, it addresses how Marbury v.

Madison established the concept and how judicial review relates to national supremacy. Also discussed

are the limits to judicial review and the impacts these limits can have on government, the courts, and

society.)

b. Justices Scalia and Breyer testify before Congress.

C-SPAN. (2011, October 5). Supreme Court justices take a seat at the witness table [Video]. Available

from http://www.c-span.org/video/?301909-1/constitutional-role-judges

(This video (2.5 hours) presents the testimony of Supreme Court Justices Scalia and Breyer before a U.S.

Senate Committee to discuss their contrasting views about the role of judges in the American democratic

political system.)

TOPIC 2: Should the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review be strictly limited by a constitutional

amendment? Read the following articles found in the Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost) in the Ashford

University Library:

a. Democracy versus judicial review.

Tushnet, M. (2005). Democracy versus judicial review. Dissent, 52(2), 59-63.

(This short article contrasts democracy and judicial review and proposes a constitutional amendment that

would strictly limit judicial review.)

b. Tribe and Waldron on judicial review.

Tribe, L. H. & Waldron, J. (2005). On judicial review: Laurence H. Tribe, Jeremy Waldon, and Mark

Tushnet debate. Dissent, 52(3), pp. 81-86. doi: 10.1353/dss.2005.0090. Retrieved from the Project Muse

database.

(Tribe critiques a proposed amendment to strictly curtail or eliminate to power of judicial review and

Waldron presents another perspective on a proposal to strictly curtail the power of judicial review. The

full-text version of this article is available through the Project Muse database in the Ashford Library.

Please read pages 81 through 85.)

4. Read two of the following articles:

a. No small wonder (Justice Breyer on judicial review).

(2011). No small wonder. Wilson Quarterly, 35(3), 60-61. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier

(EBSCOhost) database, in the Ashford University Library.

(In this brief article, Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer warns judges not to take judicial review for

granted. )

b. Judicial activism, in full display.

Dowd, M. (2012, April 5). Judicial activism, in full display. Virginian – Pilot, B7. Retrieved from

ProQuest (Search All) database, in the Ashford University Library.

(This brief article criticizes some Supreme Court justices’ willingness to uphold laws that may violate

personal privacy while at the same time being ready to declare unconstitutional laws that are contrary to

their economic philosophy. )

c. What a liberal court should be.

Feldman, N. (2010, June). What a liberal court should be. New York Times Magazine, 38-43. Document

ID: 2071453191. Retrieved from ProQuest (Search All) database, in the Ashford University Library.

(This article proposes a judicial philosophy that would protect the democratic process against control by

private, corporate interests.)

d. Toward a consistent ethic of judicial restraint.

Lawler, P. A. (2006, July/August). Toward a consistent ethic of judicial restraint. Society, 43(5), 51-58.

Retrieved from Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost) database, in the Ashford University Library.

(This article discusses the effect of judicial activism on judicial nominations to the Supreme Court.)

e. Liberals v. umpires.

Ponnuru, R. (2012, July 19). Liberals v. umpires. National Review, 62(13), 16-18. Retrieved from

Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost) database, in the Ashford University Library.

(This brief article critiques liberals who do not like the idea that judges are merely “umpires.”)

f. Conservatives v. libertarians.

Root, D. W. (2010, July). Conservatives v. libertarians. Reason, 42(3), 25-32. Retrieved from Academic

Search Premier (EBSCOhost) database, in the Ashford University Library.

(This article contrasts differences between “conservative” and “libertarian” philosophical approaches to

the use of judicial review.)

g. The unregulated offensive.

Rosen, J. (2005, April). The unregulated offensive. New York Times Magazine, 42-49, 66, 128-130.

Retrieved from ProQuest (Search All) database, in the Ashford University Library.

(This article critiques a judicial ideology that would return to a pre-New Deal era when the Supreme

Court used judicial review to block national and state laws that regulated the economy and business.)

h. Against interpretation.

Rosen, J. (2012, March 18). Against interpretation [Review of the book Cosmic Constitutional Theory:

Why Americans Are Losing Their Inalienable Right to Self-Governance, by J. Harvie Wilkinson, III]. New

York Times Book Review, BR22. Retrieved from ProQuest (Search All) database, in the Ashford

University Library.

(This brief article reviews a book written by a conservative judge who critiques activist judges on both the

left and the right who misuse judicial review to push their own ideological agendas.)

i. The war on judges.

Rosenberg, D, Taylor, S., Sloan, C., Bailey, H., & Skipp, C. (2005, April 25). The war on judges.

Newsweek, 145(17), 22-26. Retrieved from the Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost) database, in the

Ashford University Library.

(This short article reviews the rhetoric of Republicans in Congress against federal judges they call

“activist” as they get ready for debates about possible Supreme Court vacancies.)

j. When is judicial activism appropriate?

Stone, G. R. (2013, April 13). When is judicial activism appropriate? Chicago Tribune, 19. Retrieved

from ProQuest (Search All) database, in the Ashford University Library.

(This brief article critiques Supreme Court justices, who invoke judicial restraint to dismiss constitutional

claims by women, political dissenters, criminal defendants, and ethnic and religious minorities, and who,

in other cases, become judicial activists when they aggressively strike down laws that limit corporate

political gifts, gun control, affirmative action, and the state laws of Florida in the 2000 presidential

election.)

k. Idealogues in robes.

White, A. J. (2012, April 16). Ideologues in robes [Review of the book Cosmic Constitutional Theory:

Why Americans Are Losing Their Inalienable Right to Self-Governance, by J. Harvie Wilkinson, III].

Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), A13. Retrieved from ProQuest (Search All) database, in the

Ashford University Library.

(This brief article reviews a book written by a conservative judge who critiques all judicial philosophies

as inappropriately “activist.”)

l. Why liberals fear ‘Lochner.’

Will, G. F. (2011, September 8). Why liberals fear ‘Lochner.’ The Washington Post, A19. Retrieved from

ProQuest (Search All) database, in the Ashford University Library.

(This brief article critiques liberals denouncing activist judges who use judicial review to protect

capitalism from governmental regulation.)

m. How to end judicial supremacy.

Yoo, J. (2012, January 23). How to end judicial supremacy. National Review, 64(1), 35-37. Retrieved

from Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost) database, in the Ashford University Library.

(The brief article critiques the Supreme Court for becoming too powerful and explains Newt Gingrich’s

ideas for making judges accountable to Congress.)