Like many books, this one argues for a more restrained Supreme Court. Unlike most other books, however, this one grounds that call in a fully elaborated constitutional theory that goes beyond the "counter-majoritarian difficulty."

Like many books, this one argues for a more restrained Supreme Court. Unlike most other books, however, this one grounds that call in a fully elaborated constitutional theory that goes beyond the "counter-majoritarian difficulty."

We are at a Crossroads in the Rule of Law. Do we defend the law from tyrants and dictators, especially in democratic elections, by protecting the concept of the Law as Sovereign? In doing so, do we defend long-standing values and protections? And, how do we defend those long-standing values and protections? To protect the Rule of Law, do we invoke Judicial Restraint OR Judicial Activism? Or, do we invoke BOTH Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism? If we choose between Restraint OR Activism, we promote conflict between the two, causing Extremism to flourish; but if we use BOTH Restraint and Activism, we will be promoting Moderation. And Moderation works against the Extremism that leads to the authoritarian tyrants and dictatorships that are growing worldwide.We in the law must defend democracy and liberty.That means the Law is Sovereign. We in the Law must defend what is Right, what should be Protected. We will defend the wisdom of Law as Sovereign that the Magna Carta gave to not only protect all of us, but to empower us personally, and as part of the Citizenry.

In this book the author argues that judicial activism in respect of the protection of human rights and dignity and the right to due process is an essential element of the democratic rule of law in a constitutional democracy as opposed to being ‘judicial overreach’. Selected recent case law is explored from the US and Canadian Supreme Courts as well as the European Court of Human Rights illustrating that these Courts have, at times, engaged in judicial activism in the service of providing equal protection of the law and due process to the powerless but have, on other occasions, employed legalistic but insupportable strategies to sidestep that obligation.The book will be of interest to those with a deep concern regarding the factors that influence judicial decision-making and the judiciary's role through judgments in promoting and preserving the underpinnings of democracy. This includes legal researchers, the judiciary, practicing counsel and legal academics and law students as well as those in the area of democracy studies, in addition to scholars in the fields of sociology and philosophy of law.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, is considered by many to be the most influential American jurist. The voluminous literature devoted to his writings and legal thought, however, is diverse and inconsistent. In this study, Frederic R. Kellogg follows Holmes's intellectual path from his early writings through his judicial career. He offers a fresh perspective that addresses the views of Holmes's leading critics and explains his relevance to the controversy over judicial activism and restraint. Holmes is shown to be an original legal theorist who reconceived common law as a theory of social inquiry and who applied his insights to constitutional law. From his empirical and naturalist perspective on law, with its roots in American pragmatism, emerged Holmes's distinctive judicial and constitutional restraint. Kellogg distinguishes Holmes from analytical legal positivism and contrasts him with a range of thinkers.

Constitutional scholar Kermit Roosevelt uses plain language and compelling examples to explain how the Constitution can be both a constant and an organic document, and takes a balanced look at controversial decisions through a compelling new lens of constitutional interpretation.