 | Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com In recent years, the justices of the Supreme Court have ruled definitively on such issues as abortion, school prayer, and military tribunals in the war on terror. They decided one of American history’s most contested presidential elections. Yet for all their power, the justices never face election and hold their offices for life. This combination of influence and apparent unaccountability has led many to complain that there is something illegitimate—even undemocratic—about judicial authority.
In The Will of the People, Barry Friedman challenges that claim by showing that the Court has always been subject to a higher power: the American public. Judicial positions have been abolished, the justices’ jurisdiction has been stripped, the Court has been packed, and unpopular decisions have been defied. For at least the past sixty years, the justices have made sure that their decisions do not stray too far from public opinion.
Friedman’s pathbreaking account of the relationship between popular opinion and the Supreme Court—from the Declaration of Independence to the end of the Rehnquist court in 2005—details how the American people came to accept their most controversial institution and shaped the meaning of the Constitution. In recent years, the justices of the Supreme Court have ruled definitively on such issues as abortion, school prayer, and military tribunals in the war on terror. They decided one of American history’s most contested presidential elections. Yet for all their power, the justices never face election and hold their offices for life. This combination of influence and apparent unaccountability has led many to complain that there is something illegitimate—even undemocratic—about judicial authority.
In The Will of the People, Barry Friedman challenges that claim by showing that the Court has always been subject to a higher power: the American public. Judicial positions have been abolished, the justices’ jurisdiction has been stripped, the Court has been packed, and unpopular decisions have been defied. For at least the past sixty years, the justices have made sure that their decisions do not stray too far from public opinion.
Friedman's pathbreaking account of the relationship between popular opinion and the Supreme Court—from the Declaration of Independence to the end of the Rehnquist court in 2005—details how the American people came to accept their most controversial institution and shaped the meaning of the Constitution. Barry Friedman holds the Jacob D. Fuchsberg Chair at the New York University School of Law. He is a constitutional lawyer and has litigated cases involving abortion, the death penalty, and free speech. He lives in New York City. |
Average Customer Rating:  Required Reading for "The People" Because U.S. Supreme Court justices have effective life tenure under the federal Constitution, the high court has long been viewed as a undemocratic institution in our society. The "countermajoritarian" nature of the Court has been a cause both for censure and celebration. On the one hand, the Court has been faulted for sitting as a "superlegislature," in which five (out of nine) middle-aged to elderly judges can strike down the enactments of democratically elected bodies. On the other hand, a counter-majoritarian Court has been seen as a bulwark for fundamental liberties or powerless minorities whose status should not be determined by a popular vote.
Friedman's book renovates this well-rehearsed debate by challenging its core premise. Taking a broad yet detailed historical perspective, he observes that the Supreme Court is rarely out of sync with popular opinion. Under this view, both the demerits and the merits of judicial review will be dampened. The Court is not as susceptible to the charge that it is an activist institution out of touch with the polity. At the same time, it is also not as worthy of praise as an institution that can protect rights and groups from majority whims.
The book is a fascinating sociological study of the Court. It is also an important theoretical work that shows how unelected officials are held indirectly accountable to the people. Most of all, it is a call to reflect and act that is all the more effective for not coming to us as a polemic. This book argues that what we as individual citizens believe, say, and do affects the meaning of the Constitution. It addresses us all, which is why we all should read it.
|  |
Select button not working? 
