Neal Devins – författare

Are Supreme Court justices swayed by the political environment that surrounds them? The intuitive response of most is "yes," and most point to trends in electoral politics as well as the nature of the relationship between the three branches of government. It is not that simple, however. As the eminent law and politics scholars Neal Devins and Larry Baum show in The Company They Keep, justices today are reacting to far more subtle social drivers than pressure from other branches of government or mass public opinion. In particular, by making use of social psychology, they examine why Justices are apt to follow the lead of the elite social networks that they are a part of. That is, the justices take cues primarily from the people who are closest to them and whose approval they care most about: political, social, and professional elites. The result is a court in which the justices' ideological stances reflect the dominant views in the appointing president's party. Devins and Baum argue that today's partisanship on the Court is also tied to the emergence of the conservative legal network-a social network that reinforces the conservative leanings of Republican appointees. For earlier Courts, elite social networks were not divided by political party or ideology, but for today's Court, elite social networks are largely bifurcated by partisan and ideological loyalties, and the Justices reflect that bifurcation. A fascinating examination the factors that impact decision-making, The Company They Keep will reshape our understanding of the contemporary Supreme Court.

This book brings together essays from a distinguished group of scholars, presenting an array of views about the meaning of equality and providing perspectives on the on-going debates about it. By bringing together essays from prominent writers in America in law, history, and social science, the collection presents a range of opinions and insights that speak to America's ability to define and deal with the politics of equality.

This book brings together essays from a distinguished group of scholars, presenting an array of views about the meaning of equality and providing perspectives on the on-going debates about it. By bringing together essays from prominent writers in America in law, history, and social science, the collection presents a range of opinions and insights that speak to America's ability to define and deal with the politics of equality.

Are Supreme Court justices swayed by the political environment that surrounds them? Most people think "yes," and they point to the influence of the general public and the other branches of government on the Court. It is not that simple, however. As the eminent law and politics scholars Neal Devins and Lawrence Baum show in The Company They Keep, justices today are reacting far more to subtle social forces in their own elite legal world than to pressure from the other branches of government or mass public opinion. In particular, the authors draw from social psychology research to show why Justices are apt to follow the lead of the elite social networks that they are a part of. The evidence is strong: Justices take cues primarily from the people who are closest to them and whose approval they care most about: political, social, and professional elites. In an era of strong partisan polarization, elite social networks are largely bifurcated by partisan and ideological loyalties, and the Justices reflect that division. The result is a Court in which the Justices' ideological stances reflect the dominant views in the appointing president's party. Justices such as Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg live largely in a milieu populated by like-minded elites. Today's partisanship on the Court also stems from the emergence of conservative legal networks such as the Federalist Society, that reinforce the conservative leanings of Republican appointees. For the Warren and Burger Courts, elite social networks were dominated by liberal elites and not divided by political party or ideology. A fascinating examination of the factors that shape decision-making, The Company They Keep will reshape our understanding of how political polarization occurs on the contemporary Supreme Court.

Constitutional law is clearly shaped by judicial actors. But who else contributes? Scholars in the past have recognized that the legislative branch plays a significant role in determining structural issues, such as separation of powers and federalism, but stopped there--claiming that only courts had the independence and expertise to safeguard individual and minority rights. In this readable and engaging narrative, the authors identify the nuts and bolts of the national dialogue and relate succinct examples of how elected officials and the general public often dominate the Supreme Court in defining the Constitution's meaning. Making use of case studies on race, privacy, federalism, war powers, speech, and religion, Devins and Fisher demonstrate how elected officials uphold individual rights in such areas as religious liberty and free speech as well as, and often better than, the courts.This fascinating debunking of judicial supremacy argues that nonjudicial contributions to constitutional interpretation make the Constitution more stable, more consistent with constitutional principles, and more protective of individual and minority rights.

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Roe v. Wade. Holding that a woman’s substantive due process right to terminate her pregnancy in the early months outweighed state interests in maternal health and fetal protection, the Court struck down a Texas law permitting abortions only to save the life of the mother. This series is divided into three volumes, with each part containing multiple case studies. Volume One (two books) considers legislative initiatives; Volume Two (two books) reviews executive initiatives; and Volume Three (one book) examines judicial nominations. Abortion funding, clinic access legislation, freedom of choice and human life legislative proposals, and proposed constitutional amendments are considered in Part One. Presidential positions, federal family planning regulation (domestic and international), fetal tissue research, and governmental briefs and arguments in abortion-related Supreme Court litigation are the subject of Part Two.First published in 1995. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

The United States Supreme Court’s 2002–03 term confounded Court watchers. The same Rehnquist Court that many had seen as solidly conservative and unduly activist-the Court that helped decide the 2000 presidential election and struck down thirty-one federal statutes since 1995-issued a set of surprising, watershed rulings. In a term filled with important and unpredictable decisions, it upheld affirmative action, invalidated a same-sex sodomy statute, and reversed a death sentence due to ineffective assistance of counsel. With essays focused on individual Justices, Court practices, and some of last year’s most important rulings, this volume explores the meaning and significance of the Court’s 2002–03 term. Seasoned Supreme Court advocates and journalists from The New Republic, The Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, National Journal, Slate, and Legal Times grapple with questions about the Rehnquist Court’s identity and the Supreme Court’s role in the political life of the country.Some essays consider the role of “swing” Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy within a Court that divides 5–4 more than any other group of Justices in the nation’s history. Others examine the political reaction to and legal context of the Court’s Lawrence v. Texas decision declaring a Texas law criminalizing homosexual sodomy unconstitutional. Contributors analyze the Court’s rulings on affirmative action and reassess its commitment to states’ rights. Considering the Court’s practices, one advocate explores the use and utility of amicus curiae, or “friend of the court” briefs, while another reflects on indications of an increased openness by the Court to public scrutiny. Two advocates who argued cases before the Court-one related to hate speech and the other to a “three strikes and you’re out” criminal statute-offer vivid accounts of their experiences. Intended for general readers, A Year at the Supreme Court is for all those who want to understand the Rehnquist Court and its momentous 2002–03 term.Contributors Erwin ChemerinskyNeal DevinsDavison M. DouglasDavid J. GarrowDahlia LithwickTony MauroCarter PhillipsRamesh PonnuruJeffrey RosenDavid G. SavageRodney A. SmollaStuart Taylor Jr.

For more than a decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has turned a skeptical eye toward Congress. Distrustful of Congress’s capacity to respect constitutional boundaries, the Court has recently overturned federal legislation at a historically unprecedented rate. This intensified judicial scrutiny highlights the need for increased attention to how Congress approaches constitutional issues. In this important collection, leading scholars in law and political science examine the role of Congress in constitutional interpretation, demonstrating how to better integrate the legislative branch into understandings of constitutional practice.Several contributors offer wide-ranging accounts of the workings of Congress. They look at lawmakers’ attitudes toward Congress’s role as a constitutional interpreter, the offices within Congress that help lawmakers learn about constitutional issues, Congress’s willingness to use its confirmation power to shape constitutional decisions by both the executive and the courts, and the frequency with which congressional committees take constitutional questions into account. Other contributors address congressional deliberation, paying particular attention to whether Congress’s constitutional interpretations are sound. Still others examine how Congress and the courts should respond to one another’s decisions, suggesting how the courts should evaluate Congress’s work and considering how lawmakers respond to Court decisions that strike down federal legislation. While some essayists are inclined to evaluate Congress’s constitutional interpretation positively, others argue that it could be improved and suggest institutional and procedural reforms toward that end. Whatever their conclusions, all of the essays underscore the pervasive and crucial role that Congress plays in shaping the meaning of the Constitution.Contributors. David P. Currie, Neal Devins, William N. Eskridge Jr.. John Ferejohn, Louis Fisher, Elizabeth Garrett, Michael J. Gerhardt, Michael J. Klarman, Bruce G. Peabody, J. Mitchell Pickerill, Barbara Sinclair, Mark Tushnet, Adrian Vermeule, Keith E. Whittington, John C. Yoo