ERROR
Main Error Mesage Here
More detailed message would go here to provide context for the user and how to proceed
ERROR
Main Error Mesage Here
More detailed message would go here to provide context for the user and how to proceed

City Journal

search
Close Nav

Judicial Engagement v. Judicial Restraint

eye on the news

Judicial Engagement v. Judicial Restraint

What should conservatives prefer? February 8, 2017
Politics and law

The legal Right today is broadly divided into two camps: those who support a more engaged judiciary, one willing to overturn state and federal legislation in the interest of enforcing enumerated and unenumerated constitutional rights; and those who believe in a judiciary that takes a more limited view of the constitutional text.

We have invited two experienced litigators—Clark Neily and Mark Pulliam—to explain and debate these positions.

Read “Against ‘Judicial Engagement’” by Mark Pulliam

Read “Rules of Engagement” by Clark Neily

Neily, an attorney with the Institute for Justice, has made a career out of challenging the constitutionality of laws and regulations. In his book, Terms of Engagement: How Our Courts Should Enforce the Constitution’s Promise of Limited Government, Neily calls for “meaningful judicial engagement,” arguing that “the structure of the Constitution rejects reflexive deference to the legislative branch.”

By contrast, longtime attorney Mark Pulliam, a contributing editor to the Library of Law and Liberty, has derided judicial engagement as “faux originalism.” According to Pulliam, the approach preferred by Neily and other libertarian academics would, at worst, “unmoor constitutional law from the text of the Constitution and empower unelected judges to be society’s Platonic Guardians.”

Pulliam and Neily will debate this important question tomorrow evening (February 9) in New York City. Click here for details. 

Photo by CHBD/iStock

Up Next
eye on the news

Rules of Engagement

An engaged, rather than restrained, judiciary is the only answer to government usurpation of individual rights. Clark Neily February 8, 2017 Politics and law

Contact

Send a question or comment using the form below. This message may be routed through support staff.

Saved!
Close