Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:00:29.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Judicial Activism vs. Restraint: McDowell, Miller, and Perry Reconsider the Debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Kenneth Holland
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Essay
Information
American Bar Foundation Research Journal , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , Summer 1983 , pp. 705 - 717
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 1983 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Gary L. McDowell, Equity and the Constitution: The Supreme Court, Equitable Relief, and Public Policy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982); Arthur Selwyn Miller, Toward Increased Judicial Activism: The Political Role of the Supreme Court (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1982); Michael J. Perry, The Constitution, The Courts, and Human Rights: An Inquiry into the Legitimacy of Constitutional Policymaking by the Judiciary (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

2 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).Google Scholar

3 For an excellent elaboration of this view see Donald L. Horowitz, The Courts and Social Policy (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1977).Google Scholar

4 Miller at 234. He would abolish the rules of justiciability and permit the Court to render advisory opinions.Google Scholar

5 Perry's “religion” is that of secular humanism, not of divine revelation.Google Scholar

6 The Court substantiated this power in Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1869).Google Scholar

7 United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152 n.4 (1938).Google Scholar

8 Miller, supra note 1, at 168,244,286, 293, and Perry, supra note 1, at 76, 108. The work referred to is John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1971).Google Scholar

9 Perry at 164.Google Scholar

10 Id. at 163–64; Miller at 301, 317.Google Scholar

11 John Hart Ely, Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980).Google Scholar

12 Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US. 483 (1954).Google Scholar

13 The Red Lily (London: John Lane, 1908). at 95.Google Scholar

14 The Federalist No. 10 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

15 Rawls, supra note 9, at 73–74 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

16 Id. at 61; Perry at 2.Google Scholar