In Glass and Gavel, noted legal expert Nancy Maveety has written the first book devoted to alcohol in the nation’s highest court of law, the United States Supreme Court. Combining an examination of the justices’ participation in the social use of alcohol across the Court’s history with a survey of the Court’s decisions on alcohol regulation, Maveety illustrates the ways in which the Court has helped to construct the changing culture of alcohol. “Intoxicating liquor” is one of the few things so plainly material to explicitly merit mention, not once, but twice, in the amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Maveety shows how much of our constitutional law—Supreme Court rulings on the powers of government and the rights of individuals—has been shaped by our American love/hate relationship with the bottle and the barroom. From the tavern as a judicial meeting space, to the bootlegger as both pariah and patriot, to the individual freedom issue of the sobriety checkpoint—there is the Supreme Court, adjudicating but also partaking in the temper(ance) of the times. In an entertaining and accessible style, Maveety shows that what the justices say and do with respect to alcohol provides important lessons about their times, our times, and our “constitutional cocktail” of limited governmental power and individual rights.

While common-sense attitudes towards the United States Supreme Court have been focused on what decisions they are likely to make, this book aims to focus on the impacts of other politicized elements of the Court. Through statistical modeling and other quantitative analyses, Justin DePlato examines the ability of the presidency and the Senate to influence and shape policy through the Court’s nomination process, docket selection, and judicial retirements. The Court operating as a political institution threatens to affect, where it hasn’t already outright intervened, civil liberties and social issues in the modern era and represents a controversial mechanic in the workings of American statecraft.

The Dred Scott decision of 1857 is widely(and correctly) regarded as the very worst in the long history of the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision held that no African American could ever be a U.S. citizen and declared that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 was unconstitutional and void. The decision thus appeared to promise that slavery would be forever protected in the great American West. Prompting mass outrage, the decision was a crucial step on the road that led to the Civil War. Dred Scott and the Dangers of a Political Court traces the history of the case and tells the story of many of the key people involved, including Dred and Harriet Scott. President James Buchanan, Chief Justice Roger Taney, and Abraham Lincoln. Many modern commentators view the case chiefly in relation to Roe v. Wade and related controversies in modern constitutional law. Judge Ethan Greenberg demonstrates that most modern critiques of the case have little merit. The Dred Scott case was not about constitutional methodology, but chiefly about slavery, and about how very far the Dred Scott Court was willing to go to protect the political interests of the slave-holding South. The decision was wrong because the Court subordinated law and intellectual honesty to politics. The case thus exemplifies the dangers of a political Court. Book jacket.

The first book to challenge the conventional wisdom that Sandra Day O'Connor was an influential member of the Rehnquist Court simply by default of her centrist views. Shows that her impact and influence went far beyond the "swing vote," and that it truly was "O'Connor's Court" more so than Rehnquist's.

Comparative Judicial Politics synthesizes the now extensive scholarly work on judicial politics from around the world, focusing on legal traditions, lawyers, judges, constitutional review, international and transnational courts, and the impact and legitimacy of courts. It offers typologies where relevant and intentionally raises questions to challenge readers’ preconceptions of “best” practices.

This work analyses the judicial contributions of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman to sit on the US Supreme Court. It describes how she used accommodationist decision-making strategies to influence the development of both constitutional law and the Court's norms of collegiality. --from publisher description.

After escaping the clutches of a Glasgow drug lord nicknamed 'The Widowmaker', the newly promoted Detective Constable Thoroughgood heads for Manchester. The northern powerhouse is home to two rival gangs: 'The Maine Men' and 'The Devils'. When a drug deal goes wrong and Thoroughgood fails to stop it, a full-scale turf war is ready to take over Manchester - a city split into red and blue halves. Seconded into an undercover Greater Manchester Police unit led by the legendary DCI Marty Ferguson, an exiled Glasgow cop with a messianic presence, Thoroughgood soon finds that the drugs war is not the only battle being fought in the city. 'The Hammer' takes Thoroughgood out of the character's typical Scottish stomping grounds, with 1990s Manchester and a nightmare at the Theatre of Dreams forming the perfect backdrop for Mitchell's brand of gritty, high-octane crime writing.

“Highly illuminating ... for anyone interested in the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and the American democracy, lawyer and layperson alike." —The Los Angeles Review of Books In his major work, acclaimed historian and judicial authority Melvin Urofsky examines the great dissents throughout the Court’s long history. Constitutional dialogue is one of the ways in which we as a people reinvent and reinvigorate our democratic society. The Supreme Court has interpreted the meaning of the Constitution, acknowledged that the Court’s majority opinions have not always been right, and initiated a critical discourse about what a particular decision should mean before fashioning subsequent decisions—largely through the power of dissent. Urofsky shows how the practice grew slowly but steadily, beginning with the infamous and now overturned case of Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) during which Chief Justice Roger Taney’s opinion upheld slavery and ending with the present age of incivility, in which reasoned dialogue seems less and less possible. Dissent on the court and off, Urofsky argues in this major work, has been a crucial ingredient in keeping the Constitution alive and must continue to be so.