This collection examines topical issues related to the impact of courts on constitutional politics during extreme conditions. The book explores the impact of activist courts on democracy, separation of powers and rule of law in times of emergency constitutionalism. It starts with a theoretical explanation of the concept, features and main manifestations of judicial activism and its impact in shaping the relationship between constitutional, international and supranational law. It then focuses on judicial activism in extreme conditions, for example, in times of emergencies and pandemics, or in the context of democratic backsliding, authoritarian constitutionalism and illiberal constitutionalism. Thus, the book may be considered as a contribution to the debates on judicial activism, including the discussion of the impact of courts on certainty, proportionality and balancing of rights, as well as on revolutionary courts challenging authoritarian context and generally over the role of courts in the context of illiberalism and democratic backsliding. The volume thus offers an explanation of the concept of judicial activism, its impact on both the legal system and the political order and the role of courts in shaping the structures of the legal order. These issues are explored in theoretical and comparative constitutional perspectives. The book will be a valuable resource for academics and researchers working in the areas of courts, constitutional law and constitutional politics.

Constitutional scholar Kermit Roosevelt uses plain language and compelling examples to explain how the Constitution can be both a constant and an organic document, and takes a balanced look at controversial decisions through a compelling new lens of constitutional interpretation.

Financial crises put pressure on constitutional orders, inviting exceptional responses that vary in effectiveness, and have an impact long afterwards.

Using a Colombian case study, this book assesses the potential for court rulings to enact real-life social change.

The Cycles of Constitutional Time shows where American democracy has been and projects where it is going. Jack Balkin explains why our politics seems so dysfunctional and why fights over the courts seem so bitter and unhinged. He portrays our present troubles in terms of longer, constitutional trends. In doing so, he also offers a message of hope for the future. The same trends that put us in this predicament are slowly changing. Our political system can get better if Americans mobilize to change it.

This powerfully argued appraisal of judicial review may change the face of American law. Written for layman and scholar alike, the book addresses one of the most important issues facing Americans today: within what guidelines shall the Supreme Court apply the strictures of the Constitution to the complexities of modern life? Until now legal experts have proposed two basic approaches to the Constitution. The first, “interpretivism,” maintains that we should stick as closely as possible to what is explicit in the document itself. The second, predominant in recent academic theorizing, argues that the courts should be guided by what they see as the fundamental values of American society. John Hart Ely demonstrates that both of these approaches are inherently incomplete and inadequate. Democracy and Distrust sets forth a new and persuasive basis for determining the role of the Supreme Court today. Ely’s proposal is centered on the view that the Court should devote itself to assuring majority governance while protecting minority rights. “The Constitution,” he writes, “has proceeded from the sensible assumption that an effective majority will not unreasonably threaten its own rights, and has sought to assure that such a majority not systematically treat others less well than it treats itself. It has done so by structuring decision processes at all levels in an attempt to ensure, first, that everyone’s interests will be represented when decisions are made, and second, that the application of those decisions will not be manipulated so as to reintroduce in practice the sort of discrimination that is impermissible in theory.” Thus, Ely’s emphasis is on the procedural side of due process, on the preservation of governmental structure rather than on the recognition of elusive social values. At the same time, his approach is free of interpretivism’s rigidity because it is fully responsive to the changing wishes of a popular majority. Consequently, his book will have a profound impact on legal opinion at all levels—from experts in constitutional law, to lawyers with general practices, to concerned citizens watching the bewildering changes in American law.

This book addresses the current crisis that threatens the rule of law and has led to the need for its adjustment as normative concept, legal principle and pragmatic guideline for the behaviour of political players. Rule of law is a pillar of the constitutional orders and a key principle of national, international and EU law. Yet, rule of law is subject to pressure for change in the face of emergency, crisis and transition. This book explores how constitutional crisis, emergency constitutionalism and constitutional polycrisis assert pressures for the transformation of rule of law and thus produce a state of flux. It examines the rule of law from the viewpoint of constitutional imaginaries, memory politics and identity politics. It critically assesses the responses given by the EU and its member states to the current crisis. The work also provides an analysis of the most important challenges to rule of law stemming from the performance of constitutional courts, including the risks of judicial activism, politicization of the courts and judicialization of politics. The book will be an invaluable resource for researchers, academics and policy-makers working in the areas of Constitutional Law and Political Science.

Describes the decisions of the most innovative of the new constitutional courts in post Soviet Central Europe

Drawing on economic and political theory, legal analysis, and his own extensive judicial experience, Posner sketches the history of the federal courts, describes the contemporary institution, appraises concerns that have been expressed with their performance, and presents a variety of proposals for both short-term and fundamental reform.