Descripciones mejoradas de Syndetics:

Combining theoretical sophistication with a fundamental comprehension of the political institutions of the USA, this study aims to demystify the workings of the United States Supreme Court and its place in democracy.

Reseñas proporcionadas por Syndetics

CHOICE Review

Offering a revisionist perspective on the Warren and Burger Courts, this text provides significant insights into the workings of the US Supreme Court. Arguing that the Burger Court has never been accepted on its own terms, the author, contrary to conventional wisdom, argues that the Burger Court did produce a "counterrevolution" through some of its doctrinal innovations. In particular, Kahn offers a critique of the instrumental approach that views justices on the Supreme Court as political actors who primarily use constitutional theory to achieve set policy objectives. In contrast, Kahn adopts the constitutive approach and makes a strong case for the importance of precedent, rights principles, polity, and constitutional theory as the key forces that shape the Court's decision-making process. Kahn, however, does not naively suggest that the wider political, social, and economic systems have no impact on the Supreme Court. To support his stance, he examines the Burger Court separation of church and state rulings using the constitutive approach, and then compares Warren Court equal protection rulings with Burger Court equal protection rulings using the same approach. With detailed research, this text makes a fine contribution to the literature by refuting long-held stereotypes about the Warren and Burger Courts. Upper-division undergraduate through faculty. R. A. Strickland; Appalachian State University