Customer Reviews

The Least Dangerous Branch?: Consequences of Judicial Activism

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

First of all, there's no denying that this is a classic book about courts. I'd seen Bickel cited numerous times long before I ever read this. Despite that, or perhaps because of that, reading it was a bit of a disappointment. Bickel asks important questions about the origins of constitutional review in the U.S. and makes a strong argument for judicial restraint. Yet, those questions seem old and rehashed ad nauseum in the field of judicial politics. Moreover, Bickel admits that Marbury v. Madison potentially had textual foundations (saying Marshall's interpretation was permitted, but not required, by the text), but he still seems intent on claiming the decision rests on shaky grounds. After 200 years, there just don't seem to be any politically potent challenges to the Supreme Court's power of constitutional review. If anything, it appears Bickel overstated his case. Still, this is useful corrective for anybody who still thinks constitutional review is the Supreme Court's God-given right.