This text is about the impact of the High Court and its decisions on Australian politics. It explains the way in which the Court's decisions in some constitutional and other cases have changed the course of Australian politics - decisions which have forced federal and state governments to change their policies, and political parties to change their platforms. Its emphasis is on the broad range of issues where the High Court has changed the political game. It is not a history or a legal or constitutional text. Rather, it is an examination of what has been a missing link in Australian political studies. The book is for anyone wanting to know about a vital, but often ignored, part of the Australian political process.

Which miniscule non-elected group can force governments to change their policies? Which group can today be a barrier to reform, and then tomorrow set in train changes which alter the way politics is conducted? Which aspects of public life are exempt from the deliberations of the High Court? Since the Mabo case in 1992, the High Court has been subject to intense criticism, even vilification, from politicians, lawyers and the representatives of various interests. The Court has been damned as 'activist', accused of 'inventing' new rights, and denounced for forcing the pace and direction of social change. Such criticism is not new. In The Political High Court, David Solomon surveys the many areas in which the decisions of the High Court have had a direct impact on the community. He also examines the continuing argument about how responsible the Court should be to political pressure and public opinion.

This title is part of UC Press's Voices Revived program, which commemorates University of California Press’s mission to seek out and cultivate the brightest minds and give them voice, reach, and impact. Drawing on a backlist dating to 1893, Voices Revived makes high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship accessible once again using print-on-demand technology. This title was originally published in 1957.

High courts around the world hold a revered place in the legal hierarchy. These courts are the presumed impartial final arbiters as individuals, institutions, and nations resolve their legal differences. But they also buttress and mitigate the influence of other political actors, protect minority rights, and set directions for policy. The comparative empirical analysis offered in this volume highlights important differences between constitutional courts but also clarifies the unity of procedure, process, and practice in the world’s highest judicial institutions. High Courts in Global Perspective pulls back the curtain on the interlocutors of court systems internationally. This book creates a framework for a comparative analysis that weaves together a collective narrative on high court behavior and the scholarship needed for a deeper understanding of cross-national contexts. From the U.S. federal courts to the constitutional courts of Africa, from the high courts in Latin America to the Court of Justice of the European Union, high courts perform different functions in different societies, and the contributors take us through particularities of regulation and legislative review as well as considering the legitimacy of the court to serve as an honest broker in times of political transition. Unique in its focus and groundbreaking in its access, this comparative study will help scholars better understand the roles that constitutional courts and judges play in deciding some of the most divisive issues facing societies across the globe. From Africa to Europe to Australia and continents and nations in between, we get an insider’s look into the construction and workings of the world’s courts while also receiving an object lesson on best practices in comparative quantitative scholarship today. Contributors: Aylin Aydin-Cakir, Yeditepe University, Turkey * Tanya Bagashka, University of Houston * Clifford Carrubba, Emory University * Amanda Driscoll, Florida State University * Joshua Fischman, University of Virginia * Joshua Fjelstul, Washington University in St. Louis * Tom Ginsburg, University of Chicago * Melinda Gann Hall, Michigan State University * Chris Hanretty, University of London * Lori Hausegger, Boise State University * Diana Kapiszewski, Georgetown University * Lewis A. Kornhauser, New York University * Dominique H. Lewis, Texas A&M University * Chien-Chih Lin, Academia Sinica, Taiwan * Sunita Parikh, Washington University in St. Louis * Russell Smyth, Monash University, Australia * Christopher Zorn, Pennsylvania State University Constitutionalism and Democracy

Are Supreme Court justices swayed by the political environment that surrounds them? Most people think "yes," and they point to the influence of the general public and the other branches of government on the Court. It is not that simple, however. As the eminent law and politics scholars Neal Devins and Lawrence Baum show in The Company They Keep, justices today are reacting far more to subtle social forces in their own elite legal world than to pressure from the other branches of government or mass public opinion. In particular, the authors draw from social psychology research to show why Justices are apt to follow the lead of the elite social networks that they are a part of. The evidence is strong: Justices take cues primarily from the people who are closest to them and whose approval they care most about: political, social, and professional elites. In an era of strong partisan polarization, elite social networks are largely bifurcated by partisan and ideological loyalties, and the Justices reflect that division. The result is a Court in which the Justices' ideological stances reflect the dominant views in the appointing president's party. Justices such as Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg live largely in a milieu populated by like-minded elites. Today's partisanship on the Court also stems from the emergence of conservative legal networks such as the Federalist Society, that reinforce the conservative leanings of Republican appointees. For the Warren and Burger Courts, elite social networks were dominated by liberal elites and not divided by political party or ideology. A fascinating examination of the factors that shape decision-making, The Company They Keep will reshape our understanding of how political polarization occurs on the contemporary Supreme Court.

To what extent do courts make social and public policy and influence policy change? This innovative text analyzes this question generally and in seven distinct policy areas that play out in both federal and state courts—tax policy, environmental policy, reproductive rights, sex equality, affirmative action, school finance, and same-sex marriage. The authors address these issues through the twin lenses of how state and federal courts must and do interact with the other branches of government and whether judicial policy-making is a form of activist judging. Each chapter uncovers the policymaking aspects of judicial process by investigating the current state of the law, the extent of court involvement in policy change, the responses of other governmental entities and outside actors, and the factors which influenced the degree of implementation and impact of the relevant court decisions. Throughout the book, Howard and Steigerwalt examine and analyze the literature on judicial policy-making as well as evaluate existing measures of judicial ideology, judicial activism, court and legal policy formation, policy change and policy impact. This unique text offers new insights and areas to research in this important field of American politics.