Judicial Self-Restraint
- 2 September 1955
- journal article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in American Political Science Review
- Vol. 49 (3) , 762-772
- https://doi.org/10.2307/1951437
Abstract
Every society, sociological research suggests, has its set of myths which incorporate and symbolize its political, economic, and social aspirations. Thus, as medieval society had the Quest for the Holy Grail and the cult of numerology, we, in our enlightened epoch, have as significant manifestations of our collective hopes the dream of impartial decision-making and the cult of “behavioral science.” While in my view these latter two are but different facets of the same fundamental drive, namely, the age-old effort to exorcise human variables from human action, our concern here is with the first of them, the pervasive tendency in the American political and constitutional tradition directed towards taking the politics out of politics, and substituting some set of Platonic guardians for fallible politicians.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Presidential Legal OpinionHarvard Law Review, 1953
- What the Supreme Court Did Not Do during the 1951 TermUniversity of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1953
- The Structure of Nationalized Enterprises in FrancePolitical Science Quarterly, 1952
- Education, Segregation and the Supreme Court. A Political AnalysisUniversity of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1951
- What the Supreme Court Did Not Do in the 1949 Term. An Appraisal of CertiorariUniversity of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1950
- The Public Corporation in Britain TodayHarvard Law Review, 1950
- Lawyers and the ConstitutionColumbia Law Review, 1943
- Public Administration and the Public InterestHarvard Law Review, 1936
- The Reichswirtschaftsrat: De MortuisPolitical Science Quarterly, 1935
- Judicial Self-LimitationHarvard Law Review, 1924