Political foundations of judicial supremacy

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 Courts justices have not simply seized power and circumvented politics. The justices have had power thrust upon them--by politicians, for the bene...

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 Courts justices have not simply seized power and circumvented politics. The justices have had power thrust upon them--by politicians, for the bene...

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 Courts justices have not simply seized power and circumvented politics. The justices have had power thrust upon them--by politicians, for the bene...

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 Courts justices have not simply seized power and circumvented politics. The justices have had power thrust upon them--by politicians, for the bene...

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 Courts justices have not simply seized power and circumvented politics. The justices have had power thrust upon them--by politicians, for the bene...

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 Courts justices have not simply seized power and circumvented politics. The justices have had power thrust upon them--by politicians, for the bene...

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 Courts justices have not simply seized power and circumvented politics. The justices have had power thrust upon them--by politicians, for the bene...

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 Courts justices have not simply seized power and circumvented politics. The justices have had power thrust upon them--by politicians, for the bene...

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 Courts justices have not simply seized power and circumvented politics. The justices have had power thrust upon them--by politicians, for the bene...

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 Courts justices have not simply seized power and circumvented politics. The justices have had power thrust upon them--by politicians, for the bene...

Constitutional scholarship has deteriorated into a set of armed camps, with defenders of different theories of judicial review too often talking to their own supporters but not engaging their opponents. This book breaks free of the stalemate and reinvigorates the debate over how the judiciary should interpret the Constitution. Keith Whittington reconsiders the implications of the fundamental legal...