2020Manchester University Press eBooksRequires access

Politics and judicial review

Robert McKeever

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

This chapter examines the ways in which politics impinges upon judicial review and the various attempts that have been made to minimise or maximise the political potential of judicial review. It assesses the extent to which the political characteristics of judicial review demand that we view the U.S. Supreme Court primarily as a political body. The chapter explains the tradtional and modern views taken by the Court on judicial interpretation as well as the judicial interpretation of the statutes, and identifies two main judicial role philosophies, those of judicial selfrestraint and judicial activism. Political bodies, including the U.S. President and the U.S. Congress, try to control the process of appointing Justices, and try to influence the Court's deliberations and decisions on a case-by-case basis. So do interest groups. Although the Court's decisions are generally in tune with public opinion, there is little direct relationship between the Court and the people.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This chapter examines the ways in which politics impinges upon judicial review and the various attempts that have been made to minimise or maximise the political potential of judicial review. It assesses the extent to which the political characteristics of judicial review demand that we view the U.S. Supreme Court primarily as a political body. The chapter explains the tradtional and modern views taken by the Court on judicial interpretation as well as the judicial interpretation of the statutes, and identifies two main judicial role philosophies, those of judicial selfrestraint and judicial activism. Political bodies, including the U.S. President and the U.S. Congress, try to control the process of appointing Justices, and try to influence the Court's deliberations and decisions on a case-by-case basis. So do interest groups. Although the Court's decisions are generally in tune with public opinion, there is little direct relationship between the Court and the people.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

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

This chapter examines the ways in which politics impinges upon judicial review and the various attempts that have been made to minimise or maximise the political potential of judicial review. It assesses the extent to which the political characteristics of judicial review demand that we view the U.S. Supreme Court primarily as a political body. The chapter explains the tradtional and modern views taken by the Court on judicial interpretation as well as the judicial interpretation of the statutes, and identifies two main judicial role philosophies, those of judicial selfrestraint and judicial activism. Political bodies, including the U.S. President and the U.S. Congress, try to control the process of appointing Justices, and try to influence the Court's deliberations and decisions on a case-by-case basis. So do interest groups. Although the Court's decisions are generally in tune with public opinion, there is little direct relationship between the Court and the people.

Key concepts: Judicial activism, Politics, Supreme court, Political science, Judicial review, Judicial interpretation, Law, Judicial opinion

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Politics and judicial review — Research Paper | ScholarLens