Thinking About the Supreme Court's Successes and Failures


In my book, The Case Against the Supreme Court, I argue that the Supreme Court often has failed, frequently at the most important tasks and the most important times. In this essay, I respond to the articles in this symposium by Professors Neal Devins, Brian Fitzpatrick, Barry Friedman, Corinna Lain, Gerald Rosenberg, and Ed Rubin. They raise basic questions about whether it is possible to know whether decisions are good or bad, whether it is realistic to expect the Court to have done better, whether the better solution would be the elimination or substantial restriction of judicial review, and what are the implications of the Court’s shortcomings.


Included in UC Irvine School of Law's Recent Faculty Scholarship brochure (2016)

This document is currently not available here.