Item description for Cato Supreme Court Review, 2005-2006 (Cato Supreme Court Review) by Mark K. Moller, Robert A. Levy & Timothy Lynch...
The appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito made this a momentous year for the Supreme Court. Now, speculation is rife about the impact these justices will have on our constitutional rights. In its first term, the new Roberts Court has tackled controversial cases involving assisted suicide, wetlands, campaign finance, free speech, and privacy rights--providing, in the process, important hints about the direction the new Court will chart. In this annual review from the Cato Institute, edited by Mark Moller, leading legal scholars analyze these and other far-reaching cases of the 2005-2006 Supreme Court term. More necessary than ever, the Cato Supreme Court Review is unique and timely reading, critiquing the Court's decisions and emerging directions with authenticity, insight, and clarity.
Promise Angels is dedicated to bringing you great books at great prices. Whether you read for entertainment, to learn, or for literacy - you will find what you want at promiseangels.com!
Est. Packaging Dimensions: Length: 1.25" Width: 5.75" Height: 9" Weight: 1.25 lbs.
Release Date Oct 25, 2006
Publisher Cato Institute
ISBN 1933995017 ISBN13 9781933995014
Availability 0 units.
More About Mark K. Moller, Robert A. Levy & Timothy Lynch
Mark Moller is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. He was formerly editor in chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. Moller speaks frequently about the Supreme Court on television and radio, appearing on Fox News, ABC News, CNN, Court TV, Bloomberg, BBC, National Public Radio, and CBS Radio. Prior to joining Cato, Mr. Moller was an appellate lawyer with the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, where he served on the team that successfully litigated "Bush v. Gore".
Reviews - What do customers think about Cato Supreme Court Review, 2005-2006 (Cato Supreme Court Review)?
excellent, with less spark than the year before Oct 14, 2007
Cato's review of 2005-2006 has the excellent analysis and writing of the other volumes, with the added bonus of the first look at the impact of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. The introductory remarks, the look at the 2006-2007 term, and various other articles had excellent insights and deep intellectual understanding far beyond my own (I am not an attorney). For me, however, the essays did not deliver the same level of enjoyment as the 2004-2005 volume, which I gave all five stars. The best explanation I came up with is that cases simply weren't as interesting this year. Perhaps that was because Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on separation of powers dominated the book, and it probably was the most famous case of the term. Whether it was my Iraq fatigue or personal preference, I just couldn't get into that discussion. (On the dueling essays, I give a slight victory to John Yoo for a more scholarly assessment than Martin Flaherty's more cheerleading tone.)
Nadine Strossman's lecture did not provide a good start to the contributions after the introduction. My guess is that her piece was fine as a lecture, while lacking some as a printed essay, including so many footnotes as to dampen the flow. Props to Cato and Ms. Strossman for getting together, and her remarks were an important contrast of different libertarian or somewhat libertarian views on religion.
Garnett and Dunlap also discuss religious accommodation, in what may have been the best contribution in my opinion, with a fine mixture of history and current thinking, and a short, crisp philosophical detour of "why should religion be special anyway?".
Federalism and the ceaseless growth of federal power got another spin this year and probably will as long as the Cato series exists. Cato seems to be one of the few outlets to the general public for writers who truly lament this nearly one-way trend.
David Moran participated and lost in the Fourth Amendment case Hudson v. Michigan, one he felt would be a pretty easy win. Bad idea, which he freely admits in a nice casual tone mixed in with a very serious assessment of the future of the exclusionary rule in light of the case, incredulous at the Court's decision. If Mr. Moran is correct, that was indeed an unfortunate result.