The Tempting Of America (The Political Seduction of the Law)

Pay with

About The Tempting Of America

Product Description The controversial Supreme Court nominee offers a statement of his social and legal philosophy and presents a profound argument that politics is threatening the foundation of American law From Publishers Weekly Bork, whom Reagan nominated unsuccessfully to the Supreme Court in 1987, combines here a history of the Court, a theory of how it should operate and a lengthy defense of his judicial record. He claims that virtually all Chief Justices, from those of the New Deal to Earl Warren--with his "unprincipled activism"--and beyond, have attempted to insert a "modern liberal agenda" into their decision-making. He argues that justices should apply the Constitution as its 18th-century ratifiers understood it, and that areas beyond federal powers should be left to the states to decide. Although Bork insists that the Court must apply judicial principles in a neutral, nonpolitical way, he acknowledges that his theory of constitutional praxis would probably favor the conservative policies promoted by Reagan and Bush. Conservatives will applaud this book, while those who opposed Bork's nomination will find here more reasons for having done so. Copyright 1989 Reed Business Information, Inc. From Library Journal Bork portrays the Senate's rejection of his nomination to the Supreme Court as one skirmish in a broader battle over the political role of American judges. For a journalist's account of the nomination uproar, see Ethan Bronner's Battle for Justice: How the Bork Nomination Shook America ( LJ 9/1/89).-- Ed. On one side, Bork claims, are those who--regardless of personal convictions--adhere to the intentions of the Founding Fathers in interpreting the U.S. Constitution. Arrayed against them are various liberal groups and their allies in the law schools, who disdain the political process and promote judicial lawmaking to achieve their goals. Bork convincingly demonstrates that some opponents of his confirmation distorted his record and his views. However, in refusing to admit the good faith of opposing scholars, he does little to encourage dialog on constitutional interpretation. - G. Alan Tarr, Rutgers Univ., Camden, N.J. Copyright 1989 Reed Business Information, Inc.