Both historically and in the present, the Supreme Court has largely been a failure In this devastating book, Erwin Chemerinsky—“one of the shining lights of legal academia” (The New York Times)—shows how, case by case, for over two centuries, the hallowed Court has been far more likely to uphold government abuses of power than to stop them. Drawing on a wealth of rulings, some famous, others little known, he reviews the Supreme Court’s historic failures in key areas, including the refusal to protect minorities, the upholding of gender discrimination, and the neglect of the Constitution in times of crisis, from World War I through 9/11. No one is better suited to make this case than Chemerinsky. He has studied, taught, and practiced constitutional law for thirty years and has argued before the Supreme Court. With passion and eloquence, Chemerinsky advocates reforms that could make the system work better, and he challenges us to think more critically about the nature of the Court and the fallible men and women who sit on it.

The Case Against the Supreme Court

History

Chemerinsky, Erwin

Americas

Penguin??Books

Throughout American history, views on the proper relationship between the state and religion have been deeply divided. And, with recent changes in the composition of the Supreme Court, First Amendment law concerning religion is likely to change dramatically in the years ahead.In The Religion Clauses, Erwin Chemerinsky and Howard Gillman, two of America's leading constitutional scholars, begin by explaining how freedom of religion is enshrined in the First Amendment through two provisions. They defend a robust view of both clauses and work from the premise that that theestablishment clause is best understood, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, as creating a wall separating church and state. After examining all the major approaches to the meaning of the Constitution's religion clauses, they contend that the best approaches are for the government to be strictlysecular and for there to be no special exemptions for religious people from neutral and general laws that others must obey. In an America that is only becoming more diverse with respect to religion, this is not only the fairest approach, but the one most in tune with what the First Amendmentactually prescribes.Both a pithy primer on the meaning of the religion clauses and a broad-ranging indictment of the Court's misinterpretation of them in recent years, The Religion Clauses shows how a separationist approach is most consistent with the concerns of the founders who drafted the Constitution and with theneeds of a religiously pluralistic society in the 21st century.

The Religion Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State (Inalienable Rights)

Gillman, Howard

Oxford University Press

Interpreting The Constitution doesn't fit neatly into the extensive literature on judicial review and constitutional interpretation that reconciles judicial review with democracy defined as majority rule. Indeed, Chemerinsky criticizes this method of interpretation and contends that the Constitution exists to protect political minorities and fundamental rights from majority rule. Chapter by chapter, he keenly defends this unique method of interpretation, challenges the general approach, and offers thorough, expert coverage.

Interpreting the Constitution

Business & Money

Economics

Praeger

A leading legal scholar explores how the constitutional right to seek justice has been restricted by the Supreme Court The Supreme Court’s decisions on constitutional rights are well known and much talked about. But individuals who want to defend those rights need something else as well: access to courts that can rule on their complaints. And on matters of access, the Court’s record over the past generation has been almost uniformly hostile to the enforcement of individual citizens’ constitutional rights. The Court has restricted who has standing to sue, expanded the immunity of governments and government workers, limited the kinds of cases the federal courts can hear, and restricted the right of habeas corpus. Closing the Courthouse Door, by the distinguished legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky, is the first book to show the effect of these decisions: taken together, they add up to a growing limitation on citizens’ ability to defend their rights under the Constitution. Using many stories of people whose rights have been trampled yet who had no legal recourse, Chemerinsky argues that enforcing the Constitution should be the federal courts’ primary purpose, and they should not be barred from considering any constitutional question.

Closing the Courthouse Door: How Your Constitutional Rights Became Unenforceable

Legal History

Yale University Press

Can free speech coexist with an inclusive campus environment? Hardly a week goes by without another controversy over free speech on college campuses. On one side, there are increased demands to censor hateful, disrespectful, and bullying expression and to ensure an inclusive and nondiscriminatory learning environment. On the other side are traditional free speech advocates who charge that recent demands for censorship coddle students and threaten free inquiry. In this clear and carefully reasoned book, a university chancellor and a law school dean—both constitutional scholars who teach a course in free speech to undergraduates—argue that campuses must provide supportive learning environments for an increasingly diverse student body but can never restrict the expression of ideas. This book provides the background necessary to understanding the importance of free speech on campus and offers clear prescriptions for what colleges can and can’t do when dealing with free speech controversies.

Free Speech on Campus

Education & Teaching

Higher & Continuing Education

Worse Than Nothing: The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism

Why originalism is a flawed, incoherent, and dangerously ideological method of constitutional interpretation Originalism, the view that the meaning of a constitutional provision is fixed when it is adopted, was once the fringe theory of a few extremely conservative legal scholars but is now a well-accepted mode of constitutional interpretation. Three of the Supreme Court's nine justices explicitly embrace the originalist approach, as do increasing numbers of judges in the lower courts. &nbsp; Noted legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky gives a comprehensive analysis of the problems that make originalism unworkable as a method of constitutional interpretation. He argues that the framers themselves never intended constitutional interpretation to be an inflexible and shows how it is often impossible to know what the "original intent" of any particular provision was. Perhaps worst of all, though its supporters tout it as a politically neutral and objective method, originalist interpretation tends to disappear when its results fail to conform to modern conservative ideology.

Politics & Social Sciences

Philosophy

Why originalism is a flawed, incoherent, and dangerously ideological method of constitutional interpretation\n“Chemerinsky . . . offers a concise, point-by-point refutation of the theory [of originalism]. He argues that it cannot deliver what it promises—and if it could, no one would want what it is selling.”—David Cole, New York Review of Books\nOriginalism, the view that the meaning of a constitutional provision is fixed when it is adopted, was once the fringe theory of a few extremely conservative legal scholars but is now a well-accepted mode of constitutional interpretation. Three of the Supreme Court’s nine justices explicitly embrace the originalist approach, as do increasing numbers of judges in the lower courts.\nNoted legal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky gives a comprehensive analysis of the problems that make originalism unworkable as a method of constitutional interpretation. He argues that the framers themselves never intended constitutional interpretation to be inflexible and shows how it is often impossible to know what the “original intent” of any particular provision was. Perhaps worst of all, though its supporters tout it as a politically neutral and objective method, originalist interpretation tends to disappear when its results fail to conform to modern conservative ideology.

The Professional Responsibility audio lecture on CD explains regulation of attorneys, bar admission, unauthorized practice, competency, discipline, judgment, layer-client relationship, representation, and withdrawal. It also discusses conflicts, disqualification, clients, client interests, successive and effective representation, integrity, candor, confidences, secrets, and past and future crimes. Other topics include perjury, communications, witnesses, jurors, the court, the press, trial tactics, prosecutors, market, solicitation, advertising, law firms, fees, client property, conduct, and political activity.

Law School Legends Audio on Professional Responsibility (Law School Legends Audio Series)

Ethics & Professional Responsibility

Gilbert

Written by leading scholars, each title in the "Introduction to Law" series contains comprehensive treatment in black-letter style. Featuring footnotes citing to case law, statutory and other authorities, these volumes are ideal for in-depth research on particular issues and points of law.

Federal Jurisdiction

Administrative Law

Little,Brown & Co

See the best price to sell, buy, or rent books by Chemerinsky, Erwin. BookScouter helps to compare book prices from 25+ online bookstores and 30+ buyback vendors with a single search.

Books by Chemerinsky, Erwin

See the best price to sell, buy, or rent books by Chemerinsky, Erwin. BookScouter helps to compare book prices from 25+ online bookstores and 30+ buyback vendors with a single search.

The Case Against the Supreme Court

The Religion Clauses: The Case for Separating Church and State (Inalienable Rights)

Interpreting the Constitution

Closing the Courthouse Door: How Your Constitutional Rights Became Unenforceable

Free Speech on Campus

Free Speech on Campus

Worse Than Nothing: The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism

Worse Than Nothing: The Dangerous Fallacy of Originalism

Law School Legends Audio on Professional Responsibility (Law School Legends Audio Series)

Federal Jurisdiction