Do we have too much judicial review?

This week, Julia, Lee, and James court a debate over the role of our third branch, the federal judiciary. Has the long arm of the law reached too far beyond its robes? Are unelected judges legislating from the bench? Are we looking to the courts too much to break our deadlocked politics? What if anything should we do about it? These are some of the questions we consider on this week’s episode of Politics In Question.

This episode is also available on Apple, Spotify, and Stitcher.

Show Notes

James cites Larry Kramer’s book The People Themselves: Popular Constitutionalism and Judicial Review to highlight the history of judicial review.

James cites Federalist 10 and 51 to underscore the ways in which judicial supremacy violates the separation of powers.

Julia cites Amanda Hollis-Brusky’s book, Ideas with Consequences: The Federalist Society and the Conservative Counterrevolution.

Julia cites Megan Ming Francis’s book, Civil Rights and the Making of the American State.

Lee mentions his Washington Post op-ed with James, “Why filling the vacant Supreme Court seat is bad for the country” to argue that a deadlocked court would be better for the future of American politics.