See buying choices for this item to see if it's one of the millions that are eligible for Amazon Prime.

Radicals in Robes and over 300,000 other books are available for Amazon Kindle � Amazon�s new wireless reading device. Learn more

97 used & new from $0.01

See All Buying Options

Have one to sell? Sell yours here

Share with Friends

Share your own customer images

Search inside this book

Start reading Radicals in Robes on your Kindle in under a minute. Don�t have a Kindle? Get yours here.

Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America (Hardcover)

by Cass R. Sunstein (Author) "HERE'S MY PERSONAL CHOICE for the silliest moment in the presidential debates of 2004..." (more)
Key Phrases: fundamentalist grounds, nondelegation principles, nondelegation doctrine, Supreme Court, United States, National Security Fundamentalism (more...)

3.6 out of 5 stars See all reviews (16 customer reviews)

Available from these sellers.

37 new from $0.01 58 used from $0.01 2 collectible from $20.00

Also Available in:	List Price:	Our Price:	Other Offers:
Kindle Edition (Kindle Book)		$11.90
Hardcover (Bargain Price)			16 used & new from $2.00
Paperback	$16.95	$13.22	76 used & new from $0.50

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought

A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (The University Center for Human Values Series)

by Antonin Scalia

4.1 out of 5 stars (36) $13.57

The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court

by Jeffrey Toobin

4.1 out of 5 stars (208) $10.15

Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution

by Stephen Breyer

3.6 out of 5 stars (36) $11.86

The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution--And Why We Need It More Than Ever

by Cass Sunstein

3.9 out of 5 stars (8) $13.22

Democracy and Distrust: A Theory of Judicial Review (Harvard Paperbacks)

by John Ely

4.4 out of 5 stars (5) $23.85

› Explore similar items

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review
According to legal scholar Cass Sunstein, it is not enough to label judges as "liberal" or "conservative" or any other ideological stripe; one must also take into account their approach to constitutional interpretation. In Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America, he outlines four approaches that have long dominated constitutional debate--perfectionism, majoritarianism, minimalism, and fundamentalism--and argues for minimalism and against fundamentalism (perfectionism and majoritarianism are given less attention since they have largely fallen out of favor in recent decades). Minimalists believe in narrow, incremental decisions rather than broad rulings. They respect precedent, recognize the limited role of the judiciary, and "seek outcomes on which people with varying views can agree." Fundamentalists believe the Constitution must be interpreted according to "original understanding," or precisely what was meant at the time of ratification. "In the abstract, fundamentalism appears both principled and neutral. But too much of the time, fundamentalists offer an unmistakably partisan vision of the Constitution," he asserts. Though he acknowledges that fundamentalism can sometimes be reasonable, the risks of abuse are too great, leading him to conclude that the approach is "destructive and pernicious" because it leads to less freedom for Americans. In practice, for instance, it could ban the sale of contraceptives, invalidate most environmental regulations, allow discrimination on the basis of race and sex, allow states to establish official churches, and overturn even modest gun control laws.

Though they claim a devotion to history, Sunstein believes fundamentalists are "seeking to produce a federal judiciary that operates as an arm of the political branches." In making this point, Sunstein shows how "judicial activism" by extreme conservative judges has been on the rise since the Reagan administration, moving the Supreme Court hard to the right in the process. He discusses the implications of this shift on issues such as the right to privacy, marriage, affirmative action, national security, the separation of powers, gun control, and religion in public life, among others. In Radicals in Robes, Sunstein skillfully outlines complex constitutional issues in clear language, making this a useful and thought-provoking book for lay readers and legal experts alike. --Shawn Carkonen

From Publishers Weekly
In this timely and keen analysis of how judges interpret the Constitution today, Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor and New Republic contributor, espouses what he calls a "minimalist" approach that respects precedent and takes only small-scale steps forward, and lashes out at the "fundamentalism" practiced by extreme conservative judges. Legal fundamentalists profess to base their interpretations on the meanings ascribed to the Constitution by the original ratifiers. But in many respects, Sunstein says, fundamentalists ignore, or misread, the history they claim to venerate. Further, he says many fundamentalist positions would undermine liberties Americans have come to value—rights that one fundamentalist judge, offering the example of the right to privacy, says were created out of whole cloth by the Supreme Court. For Sunstein, capitulation to the fundamentalists could lead to state (but not federal) establishment of religion, to the elimination of a protected right to privacy and to invalidation of most environmental regulations. We should be skeptical, the author insists, when political ideology seems to dictate judges' constitutional doctrine. This compressed book covers all the hot-button constitutional issues in 10 short, plainly written chapters. Americans monitoring the upcoming Senate deliberations over Bush's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court will want to bear in mind the arguments Sunstein so trenchantly presents.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

Hardcover: 304 pages
Publisher: Basic Books; annotated edition edition (September 6, 2005)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0465083269
ISBN-13: 978-0465083268
Product Dimensions: 9.4 x 6.5 x 1 inches
Shipping Weight: 10.6 ounces

Average Customer Review: 3.6 out of 5 stars See all reviews (16 customer reviews)

Amazon.com Sales Rank: #673,067 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?

Inside This Book (learn more)

First Sentence:
HERE'S MY PERSONAL CHOICE for the silliest moment in the presidential debates of 2004. Read the first page

Key Phrases - Statistically Improbable Phrases (SIPs): (learn more)
fundamentalist grounds, nondelegation principles, nondelegation doctrine, many perfectionists, free speech principle, unjustified intrusions, many fundamentalists, political safeguards, narrow rulings, original understanding

Key Phrases - Capitalized Phrases (CAPs): (learn more)
Supreme Court, United States, National Security Fundamentalism, Due Process Clause, Equal Protection Clause, Fourteenth Amendment, Second Amendment, First Amendment, Bill of Rights, Establishment Clause, Liberty Perfectionism, World War, Warren Court, Dred Scott, New York, President Bush, Civil War, Fifth Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Living Constitution, Board of Education, Liberty Perfectionists, Lost Constitution, Oliver Wendell Holmes, President George

New!
Books on Related Topics | Concordance | Text Stats

Citations (learn more)

This book cites 41 books:

A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (The University Center for Human Values Series) by Antonin Scalia in Back Matter (1), Back Matter (2), and Back Matter (3)
Constitutional Law (Casebook) by Pamela S. Karlan in Back Matter (1), and Back Matter (2)
On Liberty by John Stuart Mill on page 89, and page 96
Why Societies Need Dissent (Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures) by Cass R. Sunstein in Front Matter, and Back Matter
Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty by Randy E. Barnett in Back Matter

See all 41 books this book cites

2 books cite this book:

Radical Conservatism: The Right's Political Religion by Robert Brent Toplin in Back Matter
The Most Democratic Branch: How the Courts Serve America (Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands' Adolescent Mental Health Initiative) by Jeffrey Rosen in Back Matter

Books on Related Topics (learn more)

A Matter of Interpretation by Antonin Scalia

Discusses:

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution by Edwin Meese

Discusses:

Constitutional Law by Pamela S. Karlan

Discusses:

Constitutional Law by Erwin Chemerinsky

Discusses:

What Do Customers Ultimately Buy After Viewing This Item?

	90% buy the item featured on this page: Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America 3.6 out of 5 stars (16)
	4% buy Are Judges Political?: An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary 5.0 out of 5 stars (1) $19.96
	3% buy Why Societies Need Dissent (Oliver Wendell Holmes Lectures) 4.7 out of 5 stars (7) $16.20
	2% buy The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution--And Why We Need It More Than Ever 3.9 out of 5 stars (8) $13.22

Explore similar items

Tags Customers Associate with This Product

(What's this?)

Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people.

law(2)

alito nomination(1)

angela christmas(1)

constitution(1)

Help others find this product — tag it for Amazon search

No one has tagged this product for Amazon search yet. Why not be the first to suggest a search for which it should appear?

Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store

If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store. Learn more

Customer Reviews

16 Reviews

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(6)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

Average Customer Review

3.6 out of 5 stars (16 customer reviews)

Share your thoughts with other customers:

Create your own review

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

39 of 52 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A timely book about the struggle to understand the constitution, September 12, 2005

By	Robert Moore (Chicago, IL USA) - See all my reviews (TOP 50 REVIEWER) (REAL NAME)

No more timely book concerning the American judicial system could have appeared at this time. As I write this review we are awaiting the confirmation of two new supreme court justices, a change that could transform the nation for decades to come, especially given the recent penchant for appointing young judges. Like many Americans, I'm extremely concerned about trends in the supreme and appeals courts of recent decades. Even many Republican legislators have grown increasingly concerned about a growing tendency of many Federalist Society justices on all levels to overturn federal legislation, in effect expanding the power of the courts and decreasing the power of our elected officials. With increasing talk of a Constitution in Exile and a willingness of very conservative judges to overturn well-established legal precedent and bipartisan legislation, this truly is a critical point in American legal history.

Cass Sunstein takes head on the predominant activist judicial philosophy in this clearly written study and tries to explain the reason why on legal grounds it is both highly suspect as an interpretative method and undesirable in its potential effects. He begins by insisting that "liberal" versus "conservative" is an extremely unhelpful distinction. He instead defines four methods of judicial interpretation: 1) Perfectionism, which attempts to make the constitution as good as it can be, 2) Majoritarianism, which attempts to reduce the role of the court and overwhelmingly favor legislation by elected officials, 3) Minimalism, which abjures making decisions about large principles and issues, and instead seeks to make small incremental changes in the constitution by making very narrow judicial decisions, and 4) Fundamentalism, which holds that the constitution must be interpreted according to the intent of the ratifiers (not the framers) of the constitution. Sunstein points out that while Perfectionism has played a significant role in the past (indeed, the greatest American Justice ever, John Marshall, could be described as a Perfectionist, while many of the major decisions, such as Brown v. Board of Education, can be described as Perfectionistic in nature), no one currently on the supreme court can be so labeled. Likewise, though one of the most famous of all Supreme Court justices, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., could be described as a Majoritarian, no one today either on the Supreme Court or the Appeals courts holds that position. Most justices, according to Sunstein, take a Minimalist position, which is the approach he defends. But he believes that the stability and integrity of the American legal system is being threatened by a growing number of Fundamentalist judges, and the book is largely a defense of Minimalism and a critique of Fundamentalism.

For the most part Sunstein restricts himself to purely legal considerations, though he hints at a truth that most journalists would point out rather more strongly than he does: that Fundamentalism is primarily a way of getting a political agenda instituted by circumventing the electoral process. He points out that it is distressing to see how constantly Fundamentalists, who allegedly argue for a nonpartisan reading of the Constitution, actually hew rather closely to the most radical ideas of the far right of the Republican party. Though he acknowledges this to be the case, for the most part he concentrates on more purely considerations. For instance, the Fundamentalists insist that every decision must be based on the text of the Constitution as understood by the ratifiers, which means that decisions much be based on the best possible historical understanding of the words of the constitution. The bulk of the book consists of Sunstein looking at a number of the most pressing constitutional issues-e.g., the right to privacy, the right to marry, race and affirmative action, national security, the separation of powers, the establishment clause, free speech, and second amendment issues-and analyzing what the effect of adjudicating them from a fundamentalist position would be. He finds that Fundamentalism is often inconsistent with the best historical understanding-in fact, often formulating positions in direct opposition to the historical record, such as in free speech issues or affirmative action-and almost always undesirable or imprudent.

One example of the historical side of his argument will suffice. Fundamentalists insist that the Second Amendment establishes the right for individuals to own guns. But an examination of the history reveals much that contradicts this. For instance, it is the lone amendment that is directed at providing the individual states a right against the federal government, namely, the right to form state militias. Moreover, the only major Supreme Court decision ever undertaken (United States v. Miller) affirmed the right of Congress to limit the kinds of weapons that could be sold and owned. Perhaps most telling of all, the Supreme Court ruled in 1886 that the Second Amendment was the only one of the Bill of Rights that was not incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, the Court has always treated the amendment as treating the relationship between the states and the federal, and did not involve individuals at all. (Obviously, gun ownership can still easily be legal: there is simply no clear constitutional proof that it is a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights as the NRA so vigorously asserts.) But in looking at this issue, Fundamentalists completely ignore the historical record which they state is of such crucial importance.

Much of Sunstein's argument hinges on the potential chaos that could result if Fundamentalists had their understanding of the constitution become normative. In essence, he is arguing that Fundamentalism could produce results that are undesirable, imprudent, and destructive. Do we really want a nation in which the federal government could discriminate on the basis of race or gender? Do we want any restrictions on campaign financing to be made illegal? Do we want the right to privacy eliminated? Do we want it possible for states to establish an official state religion (e.g., Mormonism in Utah, probably the only state where there is a single dominant church)? Do we want advertisements to be completely unregulated? Do we want the Clean Water Act to be stricken down? All of these things could take place on Fundamentalist grounds. Obviously, very, very few Americans would like to see much or any of this take place. In other words, Fundamentalism could lead to a nation that few would desire. And surely the point of a constitution is providing a stable, fair government that promotes the general welfare. On this test, fundamentalism would obviously fail.

My lone criticism of the book lies with a fact that Sunstein only lightly touches upon. This concerns the likelihood that we could all come up with an agreed upon historical understanding of the phrases of the constitution. If one reads a great deal of early history of the United States, one of the first things that one is struck by is how the first generation argued about what was and was not permitted by the constitution. Remember, these were debates among the framers and ratifiers of the constitution. Washington, Hamilton, Adams, and Madison (I leave out Jefferson because he was neither a framer nor a ratifier) had sharp disagreements about what the constitution did or did not allow. If these men had no ready agreement about the Constitution, how could we possibly today come to any agreement? I think Sunstein could and should have made much more of this. Even if Fundamentalism were desirable, it would be impossible. I heartily agree with Sunstein on many other points. He asks why we should desire to set in granite the understanding of men from a couple of centuries ago who had very, very different beliefs about women, race, economics (indeed, most of the founders could be better understood as mercantilists than capitalists), religion, and voting (most felt only property owners should be able to vote) than we do. Sunstein doesn't make this point, but clearly tying ourselves stringently to a late 18th century understanding of the constitution would be to tie ourselves to something that would grow increasingly irrelevant. We have a great constitution, but it must provide the framework for our changing understanding of privacy, race, and gender, not dictate the primacy of their outmoded views.

I recommend this in the strongest possible terms, especially now when we will see the Senate closely examine the judicial philosophy of two new members of the Supreme Court.

Addendum: As I write this on 9/13/05 I am listening to the confirmation hearings of John Roberts to become the new chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. Interestingly, Sen. Orrin Hatch explicitly mentioned Sunstein's book and his distinction between the four types of judicial philosophy, asking Roberts which of the four would best apply towards him. Roberts declined to subscribe to any label, though all of his answers so far and his insistence on being a "modest" judge would seem to lean heavily towards Sunstein's "minimalist" label. One can hope that this is correct, though one is reminded that Clarence Thomas, the most activist justice in memory, came across as a "modest" judge in his hearings just over a decade ago.

Comment Comment (1) | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? Yes No (Report this)

29 of 41 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Actually not a bad book, September 12, 2005

By	A. E Rothert (Edwardsville) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

Professor Sunstein's book provides an easy-to-understand description of the major theories of constitutional interpretation at play in the Supreme Court. Although identifying four streams of thought, he focuses on the two most predomiate on today's court, describing the two as "fundamentalism" and "minimalism."

There are two things this book does particalarly well. First, it points out the absudities that would result from truly following a fundamentalist apporach to constitutional interpretation. Second, it demonstrates that the fundamentalists currently on the bench are often "false fundamentalists," abandoning fundamentalism when the result is contrary to what those on the polical right wing desire. Sunstein shows, for instance, that a fundamentalist (or originalist, or traditionalist) reading of the 14th Amendment would favor affirmative action programs, while those justices claiming loyalty to original intent ignore this to acheive the result the Republican party requires. Indeed, it appears that fundamentalists are "perfectionists" of the right: activist judges who are result-oriented under the guise of constitutional interpretation.

This book argues for minimalism. But its defense of minimalism is not especially strong. It comes down to this : The only real choice today is between fundamentalism and minimalism and fundamentalism is awful; thus, minimalism is the way to go. While there is no doubt that fundamentalism is disastrous, not much is offered proactively in support of minimalism or to give strong reasons why majoritarionism or perfectionism should be rejected in its favor. To his credit, Sunstein is upfront that this book primarly argues in favor of minimalism as opposed to fundamentalism, but there is still a lot left out of the discussion. Certainly, minimalism appears sane when the only other choice is fundamentalism; however, these are not the only two choices.

I subtracted a star because the book is not completely trustworthy. Page 93's reference to "Justice William Kennedy" caused me to re-read many passages carefully to make certain I was properly understanding what Sunstein was attempting to convey and that he had not erroneously left out an important word or two. Other minor errors leave the reader to wonder if what is printed is exactly what is intended. In addition, the book as a whole, but particulary the introduction, suffers from abundant over-use of "of course" and "actually." The introduction reads as if it was dictated but never proof read in this respect.

Comment Comment | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? Yes No (Report this)

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Thought-provoking but not entirely persuasive, April 21, 2009

By	Richard Carlson - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

This review is from: Radicals in Robes (Paperback)

I found this book to be thought-provoking, although it tries to cover too much ground to be entirely persuasive. The most convincing sections describe how the so-called "fundamentalist" approach will often result in legal interpretations that run counter to the opinions and values held by a majority of Americans, although Sunstein is sometimes too quick to assume that everyone else holds the same opinions that he seems to hold. More importantly, regardless of the possible merits of a sincere originalist approach, he demonstrates that "fundamentalism" is distinct from "originalism," since the positions typically held by self-described originalists generally serve a right-wing political agenda, and original understandings are often downplayed or ignored completely when they don't support that agenda (for example, regarding affirmative action, regulatory takings, and presidential war powers). However, Sunstein's treatment of "fundamentalism" is incomplete in some ways, as other reviewers here have pointed out. And, as someone sympathetic to "perfectionism," I found his facile rejection of "Liberty Perfectionism" (as well as other forms of perfectionism) to be unconvincing. To his credit, Sunstein often points out criticisms that followers of one of the legal approaches he describes might level against the assumptions or arguments used by followers of another approach. And his general point that judges should never be too sure that they are right is well taken, and valid across the political spectrum. So read this book for its relatively non-ideological discussion of the role of judicial review, and prepare to have some of your views supported and others challenged.

Comment Comment | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? Yes No (Report this)

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 16 customer reviews...

Most Recent Customer Reviews

5.0 out of 5 stars Why less is sometimes more
This book has helped me to stregthen my view, that it is always dangerous to strive for a greater good by utterly human means. That is what the fundamentalists do. Read more

Published on June 11, 2007 by Robert Muller

4.0 out of 5 stars A Rare Book in the Middle
I consider myself conservative and like judges Scalia and Thomas, but I found Mr Sunstein's book a truly moderate one. Read more

Published on November 2, 2006 by S. Murray

2.0 out of 5 stars Not the best place to look for a balanced view
This book's biggest failure is its assumption that its readers will share the author's own political views. Read more

Published on September 27, 2006 by taxdude

1.0 out of 5 stars Sunstein's Wishful Thinking Theory of Constitutional Analysis
I will focus solely on Sunstein's take on the Second Amendment. He supports the so-called "collective rights" theory which a) runs exactly contrary to the plain text of the... Read more

Published on July 16, 2006 by RKV

3.0 out of 5 stars A fine and educational book, but completely overlooking
This book completely overlooks the very constitutional perogrative, that the power to change the clear meaning of the constitution lies with We The People, and nowhere else... Read more

Published on March 20, 2006

4.0 out of 5 stars Good for laymen
This is an excellent book for laymen trying find out what the bar and politicians are fighting over in interpreting the Constitution. Read more

Published on January 21, 2006 by Nick

3.0 out of 5 stars Some Insights, but Too Long
Sunstein's positive contribution in this book is to posit that it is important to take into account a judge's approach to the Constitution. Read more

Published on December 26, 2005 by Loyd E. Eskildson

4.0 out of 5 stars An interesting new way of looking at judges' philosophy
Professor Sunstein does an excellent job in this book of formulating a new judicial philosophy, which he calls minimalism. Read more

Published on December 4, 2005 by J. Davis

4.0 out of 5 stars How Many Wrongs Make a Right?
Professor Sunstein offers a pop analysis of the judicial philosophies underpinning trends in constitutional law. Read more

Published on December 3, 2005 by T. Slaven

5.0 out of 5 stars Don't Be Scared Off by the Title!
At first blush, one might think that "Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America" would be yet another supercharged contribution to the current... Read more

Published on November 14, 2005 by Ronald H. Clark

› See all 16 customer reviews...

.jsOffDisplayBlock { display: block; } .jsOffDisplayInline { display: inline; } .jsOffVisibility { visibility: visible; } .jsOnDisplayBlock { display: none; } .jsOnDisplayNoneBlock { display: block; } .jsOnDisplayNoneInline { display: inline; } .jsOnDisplayInline { display: none; } .jsOnVisibility { visibility: hidden; } .jsOnDisplayBlock { display: none; } .jsOnDisplayInline { display: none; } .jsOnVisibility { visibility: hidden; }

Customer Discussions

Beta (What's this?)

New! See all customer communities, and bookmark your communities to keep track of them.

This product's forum (0 discussions)

	Discussion	Replies	Latest Post
	No discussions yet

Ask questions, Share opinions, Gain insight

Start a new discussion

Topic:

First post:

Receive e-mail when new posts are made

Prompts for sign-in

[Cancel]

Guidelines

Active discussions in related forums

Discussion	Replies	Latest Post
politics I'm curious. We seem to be liberalizing the culture, government, etc. more and more, little by little. What does the end goal look like? The ideal liberal state and culture is what...?	5534	31 seconds ago
politics An interesting difference between Democrats and Republicans	63	31 seconds ago
politics Communism IS Evil - for Lily	175	3 minutes ago
politics What if it had been Bush?	55	4 minutes ago
politics Conservatives are idiots.	492	5 minutes ago
constitution it maybe the greatest document in history	3	11 hours ago
constitution system and method for creating exalted video games and virtual realities wherein ideas have consequences	0	9 days ago