2018•Unpublished venueRequires access

The Supreme Court: Law or Politics?

Richard L. Pacelle

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

Abortion, busing, and affirmative action are three of the most controversial issues in American society, and they share some important features. First, the Constitution is silent about each of these issues. Second, major landmark decisions made by the US Supreme Court virtually define public policy in these issue areas. Which is noteworthy, in part, because the nine justices of the Supreme Court, who are unelected, have become policymakers—typically thought to be the domain of elected officials. Institutionally, judicial restraint means that the Supreme Court should interpret the law, rather than make the law. Law and politics are often thought of as comprising different ends of a hypothetical continuum. The law may be adding provisions that Congress specifically rejected. Expanding or contracting the law is an act of judicial activism. Advocates of judicial restraint would decline this opportunity, opting to try to discover and follow the intent of Congress in passing the law.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abortion, busing, and affirmative action are three of the most controversial issues in American society, and they share some important features. First, the Constitution is silent about each of these issues. Second, major landmark decisions made by the US Supreme Court virtually define public policy in these issue areas. Which is noteworthy, in part, because the nine justices of the Supreme Court, who are unelected, have become policymakers—typically thought to be the domain of elected officials. Institutionally, judicial restraint means that the Supreme Court should interpret the law, rather than make the law. Law and politics are often thought of as comprising different ends of a hypothetical continuum. The law may be adding provisions that Congress specifically rejected. Expanding or contracting the law is an act of judicial activism. Advocates of judicial restraint would decline this opportunity, opting to try to discover and follow the intent of Congress in passing the law.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abortion, busing, and affirmative action are three of the most controversial issues in American society, and they share some important features. First, the Constitution is silent about each of these issues. Second, major landmark decisions made by the US Supreme Court virtually define public policy in these issue areas. Which is noteworthy, in part, because the nine justices of the Supreme Court, who are unelected, have become policymakers—typically thought to be the domain of elected officials. Institutionally, judicial restraint means that the Supreme Court should interpret the law, rather than make the law. Law and politics are often thought of as comprising different ends of a hypothetical continuum. The law may be adding provisions that Congress specifically rejected. Expanding or contracting the law is an act of judicial activism. Advocates of judicial restraint would decline this opportunity, opting to try to discover and follow the intent of Congress in passing the law.

Key concepts: Law, Supreme court, Political science, Politics, Precedent

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Supreme Court: Law or Politics? — Research Paper | ScholarLens