In the wake of the recent New Haven firefighters’ race-discrimination suit and the questioning of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, the judicial branch has been thrust once again into the national limelight. With it has arrived that most familiar of partisan legal tropes—the accusation of judicial activism, or “legislating from the bench”.
At its core, the debate over judicial activism pits the assertion that the Constitution is incontrovertible against the claim that the document may be reconsidered and amended to reflect changes in society. In his book, The Myth of Judicial Activism, Kermit Roosevelt III tackles this debate head-on through an analysis of several key cases concerning America’s most controversial issues, including gay rights and abortion. Roosevelt’s clear sense of constitutional doctrine will be helpful to any student of the law, as well as concerned citizens wondering the meaning behind the political buzzwords.









