Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:40:37.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Law's Allure and an Interbranch Perspective on Law and Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Jeb Barnes
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This essay views Gordon Silverstein's book Law's Allure: How Law Shapes, Constrains, Saves, and Kills Politics (2009) from the perspective of the burgeoning interbranch literature on law and courts, which seeks to place judicial decision making within the context of ongoing political and policy‐making processes. It argues that Law's Allure reflects the strengths and weaknesses of this literature. On the plus side, it compellingly reinterprets the concept of legal precedent in political terms, showing how the content of judicial decisions serves as an iterative framing mechanism within and across various policy areas. On the downside, it struggles to provide a rigorous framework for analyzing the risks of the juridification of American politics. Despite any weaknesses, its attempt to map different pathways of legalistic court‐based policy development in diverse settings represents a useful step for those interested in bringing the study of law and courts back into the core of analyzing American politics and policy making.

Type
Review Essay
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , Fall 2010 , pp. 1029 - 1040
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2010 

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

References

Barnes, Jeb. 2004. Overruled? Legislative Overrides, Pluralism, and Contemporary Court‐Congress Relations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jeb. 2007. Bringing the Courts Back In: Interbranch Perspectives on the Role of Courts in American Politics and Policy Making. Annual Review of Political Science 10:25–43.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jeb. 2008. Courts and the Puzzle of Institutional Stability and Change: Administrative Drift and Judicial Innovation in the Case of Asbestos. Political Research Quarterly 61 (4): 636–48.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jeb, and Miller, Mark C. 2004a. Governance as Dialogue. In Making Policy, Making Law: An Interbranch Perspective, ed. Miller, Mark and Barnes, Jeb, 202–08. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jeb, and Miller, Mark C. 2004b. Putting the Pieces Together: American Lawmaking from an Interbranch Perspective. In Making Policy, Making Law: An Interbranch Perspective, ed. Miller, Mark and Barnes, Jeb, 3–12. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Baum, Lawrence. 1993. Case Selection and Decisionmaking in the US Supreme Court. Law & Society Review 27:443–59.Google Scholar
Burton, Steven J. 1992. Judging in Good Faith. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clayton, Cornell W., and May, David A. 2000. The New Institutionalism and Supreme Court Decision‐Making: Toward a Political Regime Approach. Polity 32 (2): 233–52.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1978. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Epp, Charles R. 2010. Law's Allure and the Power of Path‐Dependent Legal Ideas. Symposium: Law & Social Inquiry 35 (4): 1041–51.Google Scholar
Frymer, Paul. 2003. Acting When Elected Officials Won't: Federal Courts and Civil Rights Enforcement in U.S. Labor Relations, 1935–1985. American Political Science Review 97:483–99.Google Scholar
Galanter, Marc. 1983. The Radiating Effects of Courts. In Empirical Theories of Courts, ed. Keith, Boyum and Lynn, Mather, 117–42. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 2001. What's Law Got to Do with It? Judicial Behavioralists Test the “Legal Model” of Judicial Decision Making. Law & Social Inquiry 26 (2): 465–504.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 2004. Martin Shapiro and the Movement from “Old” Institutionalism to “New” Institutionalist Studies in Public Law Scholarship. Annual Review of Political Science 7:363–82.Google Scholar
Gillman, Howard. 2008. Courts and the Politics of Partisan Coalitions. In Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics, ed. Whittington, Keith, Keleman, R. Daniel, and Caldiera, Gregory, 644–62. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Graber, Mark A. 1993. The Nonmajoritarian Difficulty: Legislative Deference to the Judiciary. Studies in American Political Development 7:35–73.Google Scholar
Kagan, Robert A. 2001. Adversarial Legalism: The American Way of Law . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M., and Richards, Mark J. 2003. Jurisprudential Regimes and Supreme Court Decision‐Making: The Lemon Regime and Establishment Clause Cases. Law & Society Review 37 (4): 827–40.Google Scholar
Kritzer, Herbert M., and Richards, Mark J. 2005. The Influence of Law in the Supreme Court's Search and Seizure Jurisprudence. American Politics Research 33 (1): 33–55.Google Scholar
Lovell, George I. 2003. Legislative Deferrals: Statutory Ambiguity, Judicial Power, and American Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCann, Michael. 1994. Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McCann, Michael. 1999. How the Supreme Court Matters in American Politics: New Institutionalist Perspectives. In The Supreme Court in American Politics: New Institutionalist Interpretations, ed. Gillman, Howard and Clayton, Cornell W., 63–97. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Melnick, R. Shep. 1983. Regulation and the Courts: The Case of the Clean Air Act . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Melnick, R. Shep. 1994. Between the Lines: Interpreting Welfare Rights . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Melnick, R. Shep. 2010. Silverstein's Allure. Symposium: Law & Social Inquiry 35 (4): 1053–63.Google Scholar
Murakawa, Naomi. 2010. Law's Strange Allure: The Power of Legal Lore beyond the Law‐Politics Divide. Symposium: Law & Social Inquiry 35 (4): 1065–76.Google Scholar
Neustadt, Richard E. 1990. Presidential Power and the Modern American Presidents. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Orren, Karen, and Skowronek, Stephen. 2004. The Search for American Political Development. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Powe, Lucius, Jr. 2000. The Warren Court and American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pritchett, C. Herman. 1948. The Roosevelt Court: A Study in Judicial Politics and Values, 1937–1947. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.Google Scholar
Rhode, David, and Spaeth, Harold. 1976. Supreme Court Decision Making. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard. 1989. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon. 1958. The Study of Judicial Decision‐Making as an Aspect of Political Behavior. American Political Science Review 52:1007–25.Google Scholar
Schubert, Glendon. 1962. The Judicial Mind. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffery A. 1997. Separation‐of‐Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Law and Courts. American Political Science Review 91:28–44.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Cover, Albert D. 1989. Ideological Values and the Votes of U.S. Supreme Court Justices. American Political Science Review 83:557–65.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J. 1993. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., and Spaeth, Harold J. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited . New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. 1968. The Supreme Court and Administrative Agencies . New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Martin. 1993. Public Law and Judicial Politics. In Political Science: State of the Discipline II, ed. Finiter, A., 365–81. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1992. Congress Is a “They,” Not an “It”: Legislative Intent as Oxymoron. International Review of Economics 12:239–56.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Gordon. 1997. Imbalance of Powers: Constitutional Interpretation and the Making of American Foreign Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Gordon. 2006. The Warren Court and Congress. In Earl Warren and the Warren Court: The Legacy in American and Foreign Law, ed. Scheiber, Harry, 197–207. Berkeley, CA: IGS Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Gordon. 2009. Law's Allure: How Law Shapes, Constrains, Saves, and Kills Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Gordon. 2010. Law's Allure in American Politics: What It Is, What It Isn't, and What It Might Yet Be. Symposium: Law & Social Inquiry 35 (4): 1077–97.Google Scholar
Spaeth, Harold J., and Segal, Jeffrey A. 1999. Majority Rule of Minority Will: Adherence to Precedent on the US Supreme Court. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Suchman, Mark, and Edelman, Lauren. 1996. Legal Rational Myths: The New Institutionalism and the Law and Society Tradition. Law & Social Inquiry 21 (4): 915–41.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass. 1999. One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism on the Supreme Court. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Case Cited

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).Google Scholar