Political Foundations of Judicial Supremacy: The Presidency, the Supreme Court, and Constitutional Leadership in U.S. History (Princeton Studies in American ... and Comparative Perspectives Book 105)

Should the Supreme Court have the last word when it comes to interpreting the Constitution? The justices on the Supreme Court certainly seem to think so--and their critics say that this position threatens democracy. But Keith Whittington argues that the Court's justices have not simply seized power and circumvented politics. The justices have had power thrust upon them--by politicians, for the benefit of politicians. In this sweeping political history of judicial supremacy in America, Whittington shows that presidents and political leaders of all stripes have worked to put the Court on a pedestal and have encouraged its justices to accept the role of ultimate interpreters of the Constitution. Whittington examines why presidents have often found judicial supremacy to be in their best interest, why they have rarely assumed responsibility for interpreting the Constitution, and why constitutional leadership has often been passed to the courts. The unprecedented assertiveness of the Rehnquist Court in striking down acts of Congress is only the most recent example of a development that began with the founding generation itself. Presidential bids for constitutional leadership have been rare, but reflect the temporary political advantage in doing so. Far more often, presidents have cooperated in increasing the Court's power and encouraging its activism. Challenging the conventional wisdom that judges have usurped democracy, Whittington shows that judicial supremacy is the product of democratic politics.

political Foundations Of Judicial Supremacy Takes Us Deeper Than Ever Before Into The Changing Structure And Politics Of Inter-branch Relations. Historically Comprehensive And Analytically Astute, Whittington's Sweeping Reformulation Of The Role Of The Supreme Court Alters Our Entire View Of American Government.--stephen Skowronek, Yale University

this Extremely Important Study Lays Out The Ways In Which The U.s. Tradition Of Judicial Supremacy Receives Support From Elected Representatives. Whittington's Arguments Are Elegant, Clearly Presented, And Persuasive.--mark Tushnet, Harvard Law School

this Is A Major Work By A Major Scholar. Whittington Highlights For The First Time Unnoticed Patterns In The Political Construction Of Judicial Power And The Growth Of Judicial Authority In The United States. The Historical Evidence Is Complete And Compelling.--mark Graber, University Of Maryland

kenneth Ward - The Law And Politics Book Review

the Book Has The Depth And Breadth Of Scholarship That We Have Come To Expect From Whittington. He Draws On A Rich Study Of History To Support A Thesis That Builds From Various Literatures In Political Science Generally And The Study Of Courts In Particular. Whittington Writes With Clarity, Precision And Grace And Should Be Read, If Only As A Model Of What Scholarly Work Should Be.... Whittington Makes An Important Contribution To Our Understanding Of The Development Of American Political Institutions And Raises Interesting Questions About The Shape Those Institutions Might Take.

'political Foundations Of Judicial Supremacy' Examines Why Presidents And Political Leaders Have Often Found Judicial Supremacy To Be In Their Interest. The Text Shows Why Presidents Have Rarely Assumed Responsibility For Interpreting The Constitution And Why Constitutional Leadership Has Often Been Passed To The Courts. The Politics Of Constitutional Meaning -- The Construction Of Constitutional Regimes -- The Reconstruction Of Judicial Authority -- The Judiciary In The Politics Of Opposition -- The Growth Of Judicial Authority -- The Dynamics Of Constitutional Authority. Keith E. Whittington. Includes Bibliographical References And Index. Shows that presidents and leaders of all stripes have worked to put the Court on a pedestal and have encouraged its justices to accept the role of ultimate interpreters of the Constitution. This work examines why presidents have found judicial supremacy to be in their best interest and why constitutional leadership has been passed to the courts.