David’s Hammer: The Case for an Activist Judiciary
(Cato Institute, 2007)
Join the conversation on Twitter using #CatoEvents. Follow @CatoEvents on Twitter to get future event updates, live streams, and videos from the Cato Institute. If you have questions or need assistance registering for the event, please email our staff at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Judicial activism is condemned by both right and left, for good reason: lawless courts are a threat to republican government. But challenging conventional wisdom, constitutional litigator Clint Bolick argues in David’s Hammer that far worse is a judiciary that allows the other branches of government to run roughshod over precious liberties. For better or for worse, only a vigorous judiciary can enforce the limits on executive and legislative action, protect constitutional rights, and tame unelected bureaucrats. That, Bolick argues, is exactly the role the framers intended the courts to play. Bolick showcases numerous real‐world examples of people whose rights to free speech, economic liberty, equal protection of the law, and private property were violated by government–victims of government oppression whose only recourse is the courts. Join us for a provocative discussion, including incisive critiques from Jeff Rosen, who has argued for judicial restraint in the New Republic and in his book The Most Democratic Branch, and Ed Whelan, who criticizes judicial activism regularly in National Review and the Weekly Standard.