Descripciones mejoradas de Syndetics:

Gates (political science, U. of California, Davis) investigates whether the Supreme Court legitimates or opposes the program of a new majority party. He examines 743 cases, 1837-1964, in which the court declared federal or state statutes, or provisions of state constitutions, to be unconstitutional. Annotation c. by Book News, Inc., Portland, Or.

Reseñas proporcionadas por Syndetics

CHOICE Review

Political scientists have identified elections in 1860 and 1932 as realignments that firmly established a new national party majority. The governing Republican majority was reinvigorated in the 1890s, and dealignment significantly weakened the Democrats in the 1960s. Gates analyzes 743 decisions to test theories of David Adamany, Robert Dahl and others about the Supreme Court's impact on realignment in those four periods. The decisions invalidating federal statutes, state statutes, and state constitutional provisions involved the Court in the partisan struggle for power. To some extent, Gates's data confirm that the Court occasionally helped trigger realignment by supporting policies of a discredited governing party. In part, the analysis shows how after realignment, the Court occasionally resisted policy innovation by the new majority. Overall the results are inconclusive, the calculus open to question. New judges are appointed at odd intervals, and others have not fulfilled partisan expectations. The exclusive focus on judges' political preference implies that their judgments have no legal component. Gates's historical analysis offers a timely prelude to possible critical elections in the 1990s when abortion rulings and public concern over the deficit may trigger a new party alignment. Advanced undergraduate; graduate; preprofessional; faculty; general. H. Tolley; University of Cincinnati