Judicial Activism: Bulwark of Freedom or Precarious Security?

In this revised and updated edition of a classic text, one of America's leading constitutional theorists presents a brief but well-balanced history of judicial review and summarizes the arguments both for and against judicial activism within the context of American democracy. Christopher Wolfe demonstrates how modern courts have used their power to create new "rights" with fateful political consequences and he challenges popular opinions held by many contemporary legal scholars. This is important reading for anyone interested in the role of the judiciary within American politics. Praise for the first edition of Judicial Activism: "This is a splendid contribution to the literature, integrating for the first time between two covers an extensive debate, honestly and dispassionately presented, on the role of courts in American policy. -Stanley C. Brubaker, Colgate University

Table of Contents:
Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 2 Framing the Issue Chapter 3 The Constitution and the Need for Adaptation Chapter 4 Judicial Review and Democracy Chapter 5 Judicial Review and Good Government Chapter 6 Democracy and the Indirect Effects of Judicial Review

About the Author :
Christopher Wolfe, professor of political science at Marquette University, is a highly regarded scholar of constitutional law and political theory. He is the author of The Rise of Modern Judicial Review (second revised edition, Rowman & Littlefield, 1994) and How to Read the Constitution (Rowman & Littlefield, 1996).

Review :
A thoughtful and illuminating analysis of one of the most influential policy making institutions in contemporary government. Scrupulously fair in his description of the arguments for and against judicial activism, Wolfe presents the political and constitutional debate over the democratic character of judicial review in rich historical detail. Professor Wolfe has done something remarkable: put analytical rigor into the concept of judicial activism. The result is an extraordinarily penetrating analysis and critique of the Judiciary's usurpation of democratic authority. Wolfe offers a lucid summary of the main arguments on judicial activism-both pro and con. He presents an intellectually honest dialectic between the traditional and modern views, stability versus change, legal interpretation versus legislating. Wolfe's book is destined to loom large in constitutional scholarship.