In this work, Anna Harvey reports evidence showing that the Supreme Court is in fact extraordinarily deferential to congressional preferences in its constitutional rulings.

Atop broad stone stairs flanked by statues of ancient lawgivers, the U.S. Supreme Court building stands as a shining temple to the American idea of justice. As solidly as the building occupies a physical space in the nation’s capital, its architecture defines a cultural, social, and political space in the public imagination. Through these spaces, this book explores the home of the most revered institution of U.S. politics—its origin, history, and meaning as an expression of democratic principles. The U.S. Supreme Court building opened its doors in 1935. Although it is a latecomer to the capital, the Court shares the neoclassical style of the older executive mansion and capitol building, and thus provides a coherent architectural representation of governmental power in the capital city. More than the story of the construction of one building or its technical architectural elements, The U.S. Supreme Court’s Democratic Spaces is the story of the Court’s evolution and its succession of earlier homes in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, and New York. This timely study of how the Supreme Court building shapes Washington as a space and a place for political action and meaning yields a multidimensional view and deeper appreciation of the ways that our physical surroundings manifest who we are as a people and what we value as a society.

Atop broad stone stairs flanked by statues of ancient lawgivers, the U.S. Supreme Court building stands as a shining temple to the American idea of justice. As solidly as the building occupies a physical space in the nation’s capital, its architecture defines a cultural, social, and political space in the public imagination. Through these spaces, this book explores the home of the most revered institution of U.S. politics—its origin, history, and meaning as an expression of democratic principles. The U.S. Supreme Court building opened its doors in 1935. Although it is a latecomer to the capital, the Court shares the neoclassical style of the older executive mansion and capitol building, and thus provides a coherent architectural representation of governmental power in the capital city. More than the story of the construction of one building or its technical architectural elements, The U.S. Supreme Court’s Democratic Spaces is the story of the Court’s evolution and its succession of earlier homes in Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, and New York. This timely study of how the Supreme Court building shapes Washington as a space and a place for political action and meaning yields a multidimensional view and deeper appreciation of the ways that our physical surroundings manifest who we are as a people and what we value as a society.

A remnant of the Renaissance : the transnational iconography of justice -- Civic space, the public square, and good governance -- Obedience : the judge as the loyal servant of the state -- Of eyes and ostriches -- Why eyes? : color, blindness, and impartiality -- Representations and abstractions : identity, politics, and rights -- From seventeenth-century town halls to twentieth-century courts -- A building and litigation boom in Twentieth-Century federal courts -- Late Twentieth-Century United States courts : monumentality, security, and eclectic imagery -- Monuments to the present and museums of the past : national courts (and prisons) -- Constructing regional rights -- Multi-jurisdictional premises : from peace to crimes -- From "rites" to "rights" -- Courts : in and out of sight, site, and cite -- An iconography for democratic adjudication.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) -- Mapp v. Ohio (1961) -- Engel v. Vitale (1962) -- Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) -- New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) -- Reynolds v. Sims (1964) -- Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) -- Miranda v. Arizona (1966) -- Loving v. Virginia (1967) -- Katz v. United States (1967) -- Shapiro v. Thompson (1968) -- Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969).

The power of national and transnational constitutional courts to issue binding rulings in interpreting the constitution or an international treaty has been endlessly discussed. What does it mean for democratic governance that non-elected judges influence politics and policies? The authors of Judicial Power - legal scholars, political scientists, and judges - take a fresh look at this problem. To date, research has concentrated on the legitimacy, or the effectiveness, or specific decision-making methods of constitutional courts. By contrast, the authors here explore the relationship among these three factors. This book presents the hypothesis that judicial review allows for a method of reflecting on social integration that differs from political methods, and, precisely because of the difference between judicial and political decision-making, strengthens democratic governance. This hypothesis is tested in case studies on the role of constitutional courts in political transformations, on the methods of these courts, and on transnational judicial interactions.

Looks at some of the most important Supreme Court cases in history and contends that the Supreme Court is most successful when it defers to the constitutional views of the American people.