In 1986, the Supreme Court's leading conservative, William H. Rehnquist, labeled by Newsweek as "The Court's Mr. Right," was made Chief Justice. Almost immediately, legal scholars, practitioners, and pundits began questioning what his influence would be, and whether he would remake our constitutional corpus in his own image. Would the center hold, or fold? This collected volume, edited by Martin H. Belsky, is the third in a series which includes The Warren Court and The Burger Court, both edited by Bernard Schwartz. It gathers together a distinguished group of scholars, journalists, judges, and practitioners to reflect on the fifteen-year impact of the Rehnquist Court. The work provides an overview of the Rehnquist Court's influence to date, examines in detail the seminal issues confronted by the Court, and places the Court in broad historical perspective. Subjects discussed include First Amendment rights and cyberspace, criminal justice reform, the Court's pattern of constitutional interpretation, the international impact of the Rehnquist Court, and the Supreme Court's increasing interaction with state constitutional law. A comprehensive look at the significant shifts in constitutional jurisprudence under Rehnquist's leadership, this volume illustrates how the Rehnquist Court has brought us almost full-circle from the judge-made revolution of the Warren Court. A must-have for all students of the Court and legal history, this book contains fascinating insights into one of the century's most controversial courts and a legacy still in the making.

In this authoritative reckoning with the eighteen-year record of the Rehnquist Court, Georgetown law professor Mark Tushnet reveals how the decisions of nine deeply divided justices have left the future of the Court; and the nation; hanging in the balance. Many have assumed that the chasm on the Court has been between its liberals and its conservatives. In reality, the division was between those in tune with the modern post-Reagan Republican Party and those who, though considered to be in the Court's center, represent an older Republican tradition. As a result, the Court has modestly promoted the agenda of today's economic conservatives, but has regularly defeated the agenda of social issues conservatives; while paving the way for more radically conservative path in the future.

A detailed look at the Rehnquist Court's key figures, rulings, and major changes to U.S. constitutional law. Did the Rehnquist Court, which followed the liberal Warren Court and the moderate Burger Court, achieve a conservative counterrevolution? Using quantitative data to supplement detailed opinion analysis, political scientist Thomas R. Hensley argues that continuity not change characterized the Rehnquist Court era. But without a doubt, the Rehnquist Court was frequently a war zone. Fourteen justices served during the Rehnquist era, which began in 1986 during the Reagan administration and ended with Rehnquist's death in September 2005. Presidents Reagan and Bush appointed conservative justices and set in motion an assault on the "ultra-liberal" decisions made by the two previous courts. But President Clinton appointed two moderate Democrats, slowing the conservative juggernaut. The result? One of the most fascinating, contentious, and crucial periods in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Robert A. Williams Jr. boldly exposes the ongoing legal force of the racist language directed at Indians in American society. Fueled by well-known negative racial stereotypes of Indian savagery and cultural inferiority, this language, Williams contends, has functioned “like a loaded weapon” in the Supreme Court’s Indian law decisions. Beginning with Chief Justice John Marshall’s foundational opinions in the early nineteenth century and continuing today in the judgments of the Rehnquist Court, Williams shows how undeniably racist language and precedent are still used in Indian law to justify the denial of important rights of property, self-government, and cultural survival to Indians. Building on the insights of Malcolm X, Thurgood Marshall, and Frantz Fanon, Williams argues that racist language has been employed by the courts to legalize a uniquely American form of racial dictatorship over Indian tribes by the U.S. government. Williams concludes with a revolutionary proposal for reimagining the rights of American Indians in international law, as well as strategies for compelling the current Supreme Court to confront the racist origins of Indian law and for challenging bigoted ways of talking, thinking, and writing about American Indians. Robert A. Williams Jr. is professor of law and American Indian studies at the James E. Rogers College of Law, University of Arizona. A member of the Lumbee Indian Tribe, he is author of The American Indian in Western Legal Thought: The Discourses of Conquest and coauthor of Federal Indian Law.

First Published in 1997. Organised in a easily readable format this book on the Supreme Court and punishment takes the reader through the sentencing and incarceration issues that have been so controversial and yet, so relatively unchanged over the years.

In The Rehnquist Court and the Constitution, Tinsley Yarbrough provides a comprehensive look at today's Supreme Court Justices and their record--a study all the more valuable for the Court's mixed decisions and hard-to-categorize course. An accomplished biographer, Yarbrough offers incisive portraits of the nine who now sit on the high bench, and tellingly reviews their nomination hearings. He also explores the workings of the Court, ranging from the selection and role of the clerks to the work load (including the end-of-term "June crunch") and assignment of opinions. But the heart of the book is a systematic exploration of the Court's record in such fields as government power, economic regulation, and criminal justice. In decision after decision, the author discusses the various justices' opinions, arguments, and legal theories; he also offers his own analysis (including a sharp critique of the decision to allow the Paula Jones lawsuit to move forward). Like many writers on the Rehnquist Court, Yarbrough finds a general continuity with the past, shaded by a conservative outlook (especially in matters of criminal justice and affirmative action), but he identifies a significant departure in its rulings on economic regulation. Since 1937, he writes, the Supreme Court had generally adopted an expansive view of federal power over economic matters; the Rehnquist Court has reversed that trend. The Rehnquist Court has not launched an all-out assault on the Warren Court's precedents, as many conservatives hoped, but as Yarbrough shows it has embarked on important new departures. Thoughtful, wide-ranging, intelligently written, this book will stand as the finest study of the Rehnquist Court for years to come.