Understanding the Constitutional Revolution

Balkin, Jack M.; Levinson, Sanford

doi:10.2307/1073949

Cited by 102 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…9 McGuire 2005, 8-9. We explored several possible ways of periodizing the Court's history, using the literature on political time (Skowronek 1997), critical elections (Burnham 1970;Mayhew 2002;Sundquist 1983), and constitutional revolutions (Ackerman 1991;Balkin and Levinson 2001). 11 Ibid., 14.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Where Have You Gone, Sherman Minton? The Decline of the Short-Term Supreme Court Justice

Crowe¹,

Karpowitz²

2007

PPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Against the backdrop of a decade-long wait for a Supreme Court vacancy, legal academics from across the political spectrum have recently proposed or supported significant constitutional or statutory reforms designed to limit the terms of Supreme Court justices and increase the pace of turnover at the Court. Fearing a Court that is increasingly out of touch with the national mood and staffed by justices of advanced age, advocates of term and age limits contend that the trend in Supreme Court tenures is inexorably upward. But are Supreme Court justices really serving longer now than in the past? If so, why? And what might such trends mean for American constitutional democracy? In a debate otherwise dominated by law professors—and largely without careful empirical analysis—we place the issue of judicial tenure in historical perspective, with special attention to the institutional development of the Court, the changing politics of the appointments process and the types of individuals who emerge from it, and to a lesser extent, broader socio-demographic trends in technology and medicine. In the process, we show how proponents of reforms designed to end life tenure have ignored a significant factor influencing patterns in judicial service: the decline of the “short-term” justice. Trends in judicial tenure, we argue, cannot be explained by more justices serving unusually long terms; rather, they are driven at least in part by the fact that fewer justices are serving relatively short terms. In this article, we consider why justices have retired after only short service throughout much of history, why they rarely do so today, the conditions under which future justices might be compelled to serve shorter terms, and the democratic gains and losses associated with short-term service on the Court. In sum, by following the rise and fall of the short-term justice over the course of American political development, we offer a new perspective, grounded in political science, on an issue currently occupying the attention of lawyers, journalists, and policymakers alike.Justin Crowe is Assistant Professor of Politics, Pomona College (justin.crowe@pomona.edu). Christopher F. Karpowitz is Assistant Professor of Political Science, Brigham Young University (karpowtz@byu.edu). We thank Chris Achen, Steve Burbank, Chris Eisgruber, Mark Graber, Ken Kersch, Kevin McGuire, David Stras, Keith Whittington, and two anonymous reviewers for encouragement and helpful feedback. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 2006 annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Albuquerque, NM.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…95 Eisgruber 2001 Nor is the key question whether judicial accountability is more or less important than judicial independence. 99 Ackerman 199199 Ackerman , 1998Balkin and Levinson 2001;Dahl 1957;Gates 1991;Klarman 1990. 97 See also Ely 1980;Pettit 2000.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where Have You Gone, Sherman Minton? The Decline of the Short-Term Supreme Court Justice

Crowe¹,

Karpowitz²

2007

PPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The expectation gap arises from a "complex convergence" of reified economic, social, and political beliefs (Daniel & Walker, 2014). Presently, both the achievement disparity between African Americans and their Caucasian counterparts and the current trend toward resegregation-in degree of severity akin to pre-Brown conditions-provide evidence of persistent structural and systemic issues that undermine the stated policy goal of "leaving no child behind" and ensuring that "every student succeeds" (Balkin & Levinson, 2001;Kozol, 2005;Sampson, 2012). Presently, both the achievement disparity between African Americans and their Caucasian counterparts and the current trend toward resegregation-in degree of severity akin to pre-Brown conditions-provide evidence of persistent structural and systemic issues that undermine the stated policy goal of "leaving no child behind" and ensuring that "every student succeeds" (Balkin & Levinson, 2001;Kozol, 2005;Sampson, 2012).…”

Section: Rumors Of Inferiority: Outcomes Of Testing Impacting Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Recasting the Vision for Achieving Equity

Walker

2016

Education and Urban Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, drawing on the insights of Robert Dahl's (1957) classic work, recent empirical scholarship has demonstrated clearly that judicial policymaking is tied in direct and indirect ways to the values of the dominant governing coalition. The Supreme Court in particular is structured by, and works with national political elites in order to advance or legitimize their constitutional agenda (McMahon 2004), to delegitimize or abolish policies of previous electoral majorities (Graber 1993), to circumvent institutional blockages in other branches or levels of government (Whittington 2007), to entrench regime values as they become vulnerable to new majority coalitions (Gillman 2006), and in many other ways that advance, rather than counter, the policies and values of elected elites (Graber 2004, Balkin andLevinson 2001).…”

Section: The 2008 Election Political Time and The Future Of The Robmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whither the Roberts Court?

Clayton¹,

Christensen²

2009

The Forum

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay examines the first three terms of the Roberts Court and assesses John Roberts' leadership as Chief Justice. It begins by examining Roberts' appointment to the Court, his constitutional views, and his leadership style. It then turns to examine the Court's major decisions and decision-making trends during its first three terms. It concludes by considering the impact of the recent presidential election on the Court and Roberts' leadership going forward. It contends that although John Roberts has impressive skills as a jurist and a leader of the Court, he is likely to find himself (and thus his ability to lead the Court) increasingly at odds with broader developments in the American politics.

show abstract

Understanding the Constitutional Revolution

Cited by 102 publications

References 2 publications

Where Have You Gone, Sherman Minton? The Decline of the Short-Term Supreme Court Justice

Where Have You Gone, Sherman Minton? The Decline of the Short-Term Supreme Court Justice

Recasting the Vision for Achieving Equity

Whither the Roberts Court?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About