Academic

Siegel on the Judicial Role

By Lawrence Solum

Andrew M. Siegel (Seattle University School of Law) has posted Notes Towards an Alternate Vision of the Judicial Role (Seattle University Law Review, Vol. 32, p. 511, 2009) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

As many scholars and critics have documented, the United States Supreme Court has over the last quarter-century grown increasingly skeptical about the efficacy of litigation, increasingly parsimonious in construing federal statutes that facilitate litigation, and increasingly uninterested in insuring the availability of functional remedies for the violation of federal rights. The Court?s course in these matters has been justified by - and perhaps propelled by - a particular narrow vision of the judicial role. While the Justices' court-closing decisions have, for the most part, been hotly contested and sharply criticized, the Court's critics have been slow to offer an alternative affirmative vision of the proper judicial role. This Essay both introduces a Symposium dedicated to exploring the possibilities of such an alternative approach and then offers some themes and ideas that might serve as building blocks for a more engaged and less apologetic vision of the judicial function.

Full post as published by Legal Theory Blog on June 19, 2009 (boomark / email).