Alyson Cole: Your award-winning book, The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker, introduced two key concepts— rural consciousness and the politics of resentment—to political scientists and the public that helped provide a frame for the 2016 presidential election. To what extent do you think these two concepts still explain our current political moment? If you were to revise these concepts, what would you amend? Are any other frames needed to understand how Americans make sense of government and the impact of politics on their lives?
{"title":"Ask a Political Scientist: A Conversation with Katherine J. Cramer about Listening as a Way of Democratic and Scholarly Life","authors":"Alyson Cole","doi":"10.1086/724188","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/724188","url":null,"abstract":"Alyson Cole: Your award-winning book, The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker, introduced two key concepts— rural consciousness and the politics of resentment—to political scientists and the public that helped provide a frame for the 2016 presidential election. To what extent do you think these two concepts still explain our current political moment? If you were to revise these concepts, what would you amend? Are any other frames needed to understand how Americans make sense of government and the impact of politics on their lives?","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":"55 1","pages":"427 - 440"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43034344","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The appointment of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court in April 2022 was a meaningful sign of progress. After her confirmation, President Biden declared, “We’re going to look back and see this as a moment of real change in American history.” Not only is Justice Jackson the first Black woman to serve on the Court, but with her addition, the Court has greater gender and racial diversity than at any time in history. Four of the nine justices are women and a third are people of color. Although many groups have never been represented on its bench, today’s Court looks more like America than ever before. However, this descriptive representation comes at a time when the Court is scaling back the rights of women andminoritized groups. Last term, the Court declared that abortion is not a constitutionally protected right, undermined Native American sovereignty, permittedCongress to deny residents of Puerto Rico benefits available to other citizens, and limited opportunities for non-citizens to seek judicial
{"title":"The Supreme Court and the Limits of Descriptive Representation","authors":"Kirsten Widner","doi":"10.1086/724167","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/724167","url":null,"abstract":"The appointment of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court in April 2022 was a meaningful sign of progress. After her confirmation, President Biden declared, “We’re going to look back and see this as a moment of real change in American history.” Not only is Justice Jackson the first Black woman to serve on the Court, but with her addition, the Court has greater gender and racial diversity than at any time in history. Four of the nine justices are women and a third are people of color. Although many groups have never been represented on its bench, today’s Court looks more like America than ever before. However, this descriptive representation comes at a time when the Court is scaling back the rights of women andminoritized groups. Last term, the Court declared that abortion is not a constitutionally protected right, undermined Native American sovereignty, permittedCongress to deny residents of Puerto Rico benefits available to other citizens, and limited opportunities for non-citizens to seek judicial","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":"55 1","pages":"380 - 388"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43133466","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The critics of Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision recognizing a right to choose abortion, long faulted the Court for an act of failed diplomacy. Scholars across the ideological spectrum argued that Roe had unnecessarily alienated antiabortion Americans by doing too much too soon, imposing a sweeping resolution, and disrupting a state-by-state process of experimentation. The conservative Supreme Court recently positioned itself as a more rational, neutral arbiter. “This Court,” the Court opined inDobbs v. JacksonWomen’s Health Organization, “cannot bring about the permanent resolution of a rancorous national controversy simply by dictating a settlement and telling the people to move on.” If Roe and Casey took sides in the conflict over abortion, Dobbs is far worse. The Dobbs Court takes sides in a longstanding historical debate about how US law and culture viewed early abortion as acceptable, cherry-picking those accounts that support its vision of the past, even if they are not widely accepted. The Court claims to be bound by precedent when rejecting the idea of an abortion right rooted in principles of constitutional equality, all while breezily dismantling a precedent in Roe that is nearly five decades old. The Court proclaims its ability to rise above the partisan fray on abortion at the same time that it echoes a rich range of arguments
罗伊诉韦德案(Roe v. Wade)是一项具有里程碑意义的判决，承认了选择堕胎的权利。长期以来，对该案的批评者指责最高法院的外交手段失败。各种意识形态的学者都认为，罗伊案做得太多太快，强行通过了一项全面的决议，扰乱了各州的实验过程，不必要地疏远了反堕胎的美国人。保守的最高法院最近将自己定位为一个更加理性、中立的仲裁者。最高法院在“多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案”中表示:“本法院不能仅仅通过命令和解并告诉人们继续前进来永久解决一场充满仇恨的全国性争议。”如果罗伊和凯西在堕胎的冲突中站队，那么多布斯的情况要糟糕得多。关于美国法律和文化如何看待早期堕胎是可以接受的，多布斯法院在一场长期的历史辩论中站队，挑选了那些支持其对过去的看法的说法，即使它们没有被广泛接受。最高法院在拒绝植根于宪法平等原则的堕胎权的想法时，声称受到先例的约束，同时轻松地废除了罗伊案近50年前的先例。最高法院宣称，它有能力在堕胎问题上超越党派之争，同时也呼应了一系列丰富的论点
{"title":"Dobbs and the Jurisprudence of Exclusion","authors":"M. Ziegler","doi":"10.1086/724185","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/724185","url":null,"abstract":"The critics of Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision recognizing a right to choose abortion, long faulted the Court for an act of failed diplomacy. Scholars across the ideological spectrum argued that Roe had unnecessarily alienated antiabortion Americans by doing too much too soon, imposing a sweeping resolution, and disrupting a state-by-state process of experimentation. The conservative Supreme Court recently positioned itself as a more rational, neutral arbiter. “This Court,” the Court opined inDobbs v. JacksonWomen’s Health Organization, “cannot bring about the permanent resolution of a rancorous national controversy simply by dictating a settlement and telling the people to move on.” If Roe and Casey took sides in the conflict over abortion, Dobbs is far worse. The Dobbs Court takes sides in a longstanding historical debate about how US law and culture viewed early abortion as acceptable, cherry-picking those accounts that support its vision of the past, even if they are not widely accepted. The Court claims to be bound by precedent when rejecting the idea of an abortion right rooted in principles of constitutional equality, all while breezily dismantling a precedent in Roe that is nearly five decades old. The Court proclaims its ability to rise above the partisan fray on abortion at the same time that it echoes a rich range of arguments","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":"55 1","pages":"419 - 426"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46643826","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Since the late 1930s, national administrative agencies have built policy by interpreting broad and sometimes vague congressional statutes to develop rules that fulfill Congress’s vision. This model facilitated administrative development, resulting in the organization and operation of the modern American state. Recently, however, the Court has constructed a path to transform this understanding by reviving a long-abandoned principle, that of nondelegation. Reanimating nondelegation would require Congress to legislate in narrower and more specific ways, limit the reach and autonomy of administrative agencies, and leave far more governing authority in the hands of states and localities. Simultaneously, the Court is exercising more scrutiny over Congress’s exercise of its authority, especially when its actions curtail state sovereignty.While this most recent case,West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), does not achieve these broad changes, the interplay between Chief Justice Roberts and other conservatives invites further attempts to constitutionally transform and shrink the national administrative state. The nondelegation doctrine controversially holds that “legislative delegation of rule-making power to the executive branch is unconstitutional, and that the federal courts should strike down legislation that delegates.” Most scholars locate the doctrine’s high-water mark at the national level during the NewDeal in the 1930s, with the Supreme Court using it to invalidate the National Industrial Recovery Act.
{"title":"West Virginia v. EPA: Whither the New Deal Order?","authors":"J. Novkov","doi":"10.1086/724161","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/724161","url":null,"abstract":"Since the late 1930s, national administrative agencies have built policy by interpreting broad and sometimes vague congressional statutes to develop rules that fulfill Congress’s vision. This model facilitated administrative development, resulting in the organization and operation of the modern American state. Recently, however, the Court has constructed a path to transform this understanding by reviving a long-abandoned principle, that of nondelegation. Reanimating nondelegation would require Congress to legislate in narrower and more specific ways, limit the reach and autonomy of administrative agencies, and leave far more governing authority in the hands of states and localities. Simultaneously, the Court is exercising more scrutiny over Congress’s exercise of its authority, especially when its actions curtail state sovereignty.While this most recent case,West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), does not achieve these broad changes, the interplay between Chief Justice Roberts and other conservatives invites further attempts to constitutionally transform and shrink the national administrative state. The nondelegation doctrine controversially holds that “legislative delegation of rule-making power to the executive branch is unconstitutional, and that the federal courts should strike down legislation that delegates.” Most scholars locate the doctrine’s high-water mark at the national level during the NewDeal in the 1930s, with the Supreme Court using it to invalidate the National Industrial Recovery Act.","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":"55 1","pages":"410 - 418"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49075831","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The conservative legal movement has been gaining traction for nearly half a century and owes much of its success and incorporation into mainstream American politics to the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies (FedSoc). After a blockbuster 2021 term, many Americans noticed the power of a new conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court. This ideological composition is the result of decades of careful training of American jurists by FedSoc affiliates paired with tactful political maneuvering to allow their originalist allies to ascend to the highest level. The insurmountable conservative supermajority at the Supreme Court leaves left-of-center interests with little choice than to concentrate efforts at intermediate federal appeals courts. The recent rulings’ policy implications, including those considered by our colleagues in this symposium such as gun control, abortion, environmental regulation, free speech, free exercise, as well as tribal sovereignty, do not bode a welcoming Supreme Court for litigation strategies supporting the goals of left-of-center or
近半个世纪以来，保守的法律运动一直受到关注，它的成功和融入美国主流政治在很大程度上要归功于联邦党人法律和公共政策研究协会(Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies，简称FedSoc)。在经历了2021年的重磅任期后，许多美国人注意到最高法院中新的保守派绝对多数的力量。这种意识形态构成是联邦安全委员会下属机构数十年来对美国法学家进行精心训练的结果，同时也是巧妙的政治操作的结果，以使他们的原旨主义盟友能够上升到最高水平。保守派在最高法院占据不可逾越的绝对多数，这让中间偏左的利益集团别无选择，只能把精力集中在联邦中级上诉法院。最近的裁决的政策含义，包括我们的同事在这次研讨会上考虑的那些，如枪支管制，堕胎，环境法规，言论自由，自由行使，以及部落主权，并不预示着最高法院对支持中间偏左或中立的目标的诉讼策略的欢迎
{"title":"Looking Forward: Interest Group Legal Strategy and Federalist Society Affiliation in the United States Circuit Courts of Appeal","authors":"Christin Bird, Zachary A. McGee","doi":"10.1086/724189","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/724189","url":null,"abstract":"The conservative legal movement has been gaining traction for nearly half a century and owes much of its success and incorporation into mainstream American politics to the Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies (FedSoc). After a blockbuster 2021 term, many Americans noticed the power of a new conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court. This ideological composition is the result of decades of careful training of American jurists by FedSoc affiliates paired with tactful political maneuvering to allow their originalist allies to ascend to the highest level. The insurmountable conservative supermajority at the Supreme Court leaves left-of-center interests with little choice than to concentrate efforts at intermediate federal appeals courts. The recent rulings’ policy implications, including those considered by our colleagues in this symposium such as gun control, abortion, environmental regulation, free speech, free exercise, as well as tribal sovereignty, do not bode a welcoming Supreme Court for litigation strategies supporting the goals of left-of-center or","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":"55 1","pages":"389 - 399"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43005741","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
C. L. Boyd, P. Collins, Lori A. Ringhand, Karson A. Pennington
We are grateful to Susan Liebell and the Polity editors and reviewers for helpful feedback on this article and support of this symposium. 1 “Remarks by President Biden on his Nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Serve as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court,” The White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov /briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/02/25/remarks-by-president-biden-on-his-nomination-of -judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-to-serve-as-associate-justice-of-the-u-s-supreme-court/.
{"title":"Constructing the Supreme Court: How Race, Ethnicity, and Gender Have Affected Presidential Selection and Senate Confirmation Hearings","authors":"C. L. Boyd, P. Collins, Lori A. Ringhand, Karson A. Pennington","doi":"10.1086/724163","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/724163","url":null,"abstract":"We are grateful to Susan Liebell and the Polity editors and reviewers for helpful feedback on this article and support of this symposium. 1 “Remarks by President Biden on his Nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to Serve as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court,” The White House, https://www.whitehouse.gov /briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/02/25/remarks-by-president-biden-on-his-nomination-of -judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-to-serve-as-associate-justice-of-the-u-s-supreme-court/.","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":"55 1","pages":"400 - 409"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43740122","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
InAmerican law, the boundaries of regulation are set by—among other things— politics and the Constitution. Either one can serve as a constraint. Regulations that are politically unpopular or otherwise unfeasible are non-starters regardless of whether they satisfy the Constitution. Regulations that violate the Constitution, on the other hand, may be tremendously popular but will often be struck down by courts. The line between these political and constitutional constraints is never entirely clear, as political rhetoric and constitutional doctrine borrow from one another in innumerable ways. Elected officials take oaths to uphold the Constitution; judges often act in ways that appear political. But in a broad sense, judges are more commonly associated with the enforcement of constitutional law and regularly deny that they are doing politics—a matter for elected officials. Recognizing some slippage between the categories, we can draw a line between judge-enforced constitutional law and democratic politics. Formost of American history, the balance of gun rights and regulationwas set by politics—not, as one might suspect from its prominence in the current gun debate, the Second Amendment. Decisions about gun law were made by elected officials at the federal, state, and local level, responding to different forms of political pressure.
{"title":"Does the Second Amendment Make Gun Politics Obsolete?","authors":"Joseph Blocher, Andrew Willinger","doi":"10.1086/724162","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/724162","url":null,"abstract":"InAmerican law, the boundaries of regulation are set by—among other things— politics and the Constitution. Either one can serve as a constraint. Regulations that are politically unpopular or otherwise unfeasible are non-starters regardless of whether they satisfy the Constitution. Regulations that violate the Constitution, on the other hand, may be tremendously popular but will often be struck down by courts. The line between these political and constitutional constraints is never entirely clear, as political rhetoric and constitutional doctrine borrow from one another in innumerable ways. Elected officials take oaths to uphold the Constitution; judges often act in ways that appear political. But in a broad sense, judges are more commonly associated with the enforcement of constitutional law and regularly deny that they are doing politics—a matter for elected officials. Recognizing some slippage between the categories, we can draw a line between judge-enforced constitutional law and democratic politics. Formost of American history, the balance of gun rights and regulationwas set by politics—not, as one might suspect from its prominence in the current gun debate, the Second Amendment. Decisions about gun law were made by elected officials at the federal, state, and local level, responding to different forms of political pressure.","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":"55 1","pages":"363 - 370"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45325055","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abortion and religious liberty remain the core and foundational pillars of the Christian Right, even as the movement’s interests have diversified over the decades. As Jerry Falwell, a founding architect of the movement, stated, Christian conservatives sprang into action because they felt the nation was “virtually driving God from the public square. And then, of course, Roe vs. Wade in the middle of all that.” Two Roberts Court decisions last term thus represent the culmination of decades of dedicated work by the Christian Right. These two cases areDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned national abortion rights and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the First Amendment case involving the high school coach discouraged from leading prayers on the field after football games. Just like Dobbs, Bremerton is the product of a decades-long investment in building institutions and ways of seeing the world that have marked the rise of the Christian Right. Moreover, this investment in institutions and ideas has succeeded in crystallizing a distinct Christian Right worldview—one centered on the identity
堕胎和宗教自由仍然是基督教右翼的核心和基本支柱，尽管几十年来该运动的利益已经多样化。正如该运动的创始人之一杰里·福尔韦尔(Jerry Falwell)所说，基督教保守派之所以采取行动，是因为他们觉得这个国家“实际上是在把上帝赶出公共广场”。当然，在这中间还有罗伊诉韦德案。”因此，罗伯茨法院上个任期的两项判决代表了基督教右翼数十年来的奉献工作的高潮。这两个案例分别是多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案(dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization)和肯尼迪诉布雷默顿学区案(Kennedy v. Bremerton School District)。前者推翻了国家堕胎权，后者是根据宪法第一修正案，涉及一名高中教练被禁止在橄榄球赛后在球场上带领祈祷。就像多布斯一样，布雷默顿是数十年来在建立制度和看待世界的方式方面的投资的产物，这些都标志着基督教右翼的崛起。此外，这种对制度和理念的投资已经成功地形成了一种独特的基督教右翼世界观——一种以身份为中心的世界观
{"title":"How the Christian Right Slayed a Monster and Reframed the Religion Clauses in Bremerton","authors":"Joshua C. Wilson, Amanda Hollis‐Brusky","doi":"10.1086/724187","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/724187","url":null,"abstract":"Abortion and religious liberty remain the core and foundational pillars of the Christian Right, even as the movement’s interests have diversified over the decades. As Jerry Falwell, a founding architect of the movement, stated, Christian conservatives sprang into action because they felt the nation was “virtually driving God from the public square. And then, of course, Roe vs. Wade in the middle of all that.” Two Roberts Court decisions last term thus represent the culmination of decades of dedicated work by the Christian Right. These two cases areDobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned national abortion rights and Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the First Amendment case involving the high school coach discouraged from leading prayers on the field after football games. Just like Dobbs, Bremerton is the product of a decades-long investment in building institutions and ways of seeing the world that have marked the rise of the Christian Right. Moreover, this investment in institutions and ideas has succeeded in crystallizing a distinct Christian Right worldview—one centered on the identity","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":"55 1","pages":"371 - 379"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43833415","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In June 2022, the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v.Wade, 1 the precedent that had guaranteed access to abortion as a fundamental liberty ensured by the Fourteenth Amendment for almost half a century. Most Americans don’t know much about the Supreme Court or the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the abortion decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization triggered political protests, extensive press coverage, and a wave of voter registration. Candidates for political offices revised their campaign strategies. Millions of dollars were poured into a state-wide referendum on abortion in Kansas. In his majority decision in Dobbs, Justice Alito insisted that the Constitution speaks clearly; abortion is not a fundamental right to be defended by the Court but a policy issue to be determined by the political branches of government. Yet voters are skeptical about whether the Constitution provides such clarity. Polls have consistently shown that people (especially those who identify as Democrats) believe the justices of the Supreme Court are increasingly political, pursuing conservative goals rather than impersonally ruling on constitutionality. Political scientists have
{"title":"The Politics of Law: Capricious Originalism and the Future of the Supreme Court","authors":"Susan Liebell","doi":"10.1086/724164","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1086/724164","url":null,"abstract":"In June 2022, the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v.Wade, 1 the precedent that had guaranteed access to abortion as a fundamental liberty ensured by the Fourteenth Amendment for almost half a century. Most Americans don’t know much about the Supreme Court or the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the abortion decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization triggered political protests, extensive press coverage, and a wave of voter registration. Candidates for political offices revised their campaign strategies. Millions of dollars were poured into a state-wide referendum on abortion in Kansas. In his majority decision in Dobbs, Justice Alito insisted that the Constitution speaks clearly; abortion is not a fundamental right to be defended by the Court but a policy issue to be determined by the political branches of government. Yet voters are skeptical about whether the Constitution provides such clarity. Polls have consistently shown that people (especially those who identify as Democrats) believe the justices of the Supreme Court are increasingly political, pursuing conservative goals rather than impersonally ruling on constitutionality. Political scientists have","PeriodicalId":46912,"journal":{"name":"Polity","volume":"55 1","pages":"356 - 362"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2023-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45763698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：