Chapter

Conclusion Modern Conservatism and Judicial Power

in The Most Activist Supreme Court in History

Published by University of Chicago Press

Published in print October 2004 | ISBN: 9780226428840
Published online March 2013 | e-ISBN: 9780226428864 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226428864.003.0009
Conclusion Modern Conservatism and Judicial Power

Show Summary Details

Preview

The liberal and Democratic support for the Court took a temporary hit from Bush v. Gore, but it quickly rebounded and is likely to remain strong over the long term, in large part because Justices O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy have preserved so much of the Warren Court legacy. The nation's ever-firmer commitment to rights-based activism has undermined the continued conservative calls for judicial restraint in contexts such as abortion and gay rights. Contemporary judicial conservatism is a rights-based conservatism. When the conservative justices have asserted their own power, they have generally justified such assertions on either originalist or rights-protecting grounds. If Bush v. Gore merits criticism, it is because it reflected an imperious vision of the judicial role that has characterized the current Court more generally, and not solely because it was a partisan decision in a particular case.

Keywords: Bush v. Gore; Democratic support; O'Connor; Kennedy; rights-based conservatism

Chapter.  5433 words. 

Subjects: US Politics

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.