Skip to main content
×
Home
Legislative Deferrals
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 13
  • Cited by
    This book has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Moustafa, Tamir 2014. Law and Courts in Authoritarian Regimes. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Vol. 10, Issue. 1, p. 281.


    Goldfield, Michael and Bromsen, Amy 2013. The Changing Landscape of US Unions in Historical and Theoretical Perspective. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 16, Issue. 1, p. 231.


    Brandwein, Pamela 2011. Law and American Political Development. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Vol. 7, Issue. 1, p. 187.


    Barclay, Scott 2010. In Search of Judicial Activism in the Same-Sex Marriage Cases: Sorting the Evidence from Courts, Legislatures, Initiatives and Amendments. Perspectives on Politics, Vol. 8, Issue. 01, p. 111.


    Barnes, Jeb 2010. Law's Allure and an Interbranch Perspective on Law and Politics. Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 35, Issue. 4, p. 1029.


    Brisbin, Richard A. 2010. Resistance to Legality. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Vol. 6, Issue. 1, p. 25.


    Murakawa, Naomi 2010. Law's Strange Allure: The Power of Legal Lore beyond the Law-Politics Divide. Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 35, Issue. 4, p. 1065.


    Graber, Mark A. 2008. The Countermajoritarian Difficulty: From Courts to Congress to Constitutional Order. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Vol. 4, Issue. 1, p. 361.


    Hirschl, Ran 2008. The Judicialization of Mega-Politics and the Rise of Political Courts. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 11, Issue. 1, p. 93.


    Roesler, Shannon 2007. Permutations of Judicial Power: The New Constitutionalism and the Expansion of Judicial Authority. Law & Social Inquiry, Vol. 32, Issue. 2, p. 545.


    SMITH, JOSEPH L. 2006. Judicial Procedures as Instruments of Political Control: Congress's Strategic Use of Citizen Suits. Legislative Studies Quarterly, Vol. 31, Issue. 2, p. 283.


    Graber, Mark A. 2005. CONSTRUCTING JUDICIAL REVIEW. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 8, Issue. 1, p. 425.


    Gillman, Howard 2004. MARTIN SHAPIRO AND THE MOVEMENT FROM “OLD” TO “NEW” INSTITUTIONALIST STUDIES IN PUBLIC LAW SCHOLARSHIP. Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 7, Issue. 1, p. 363.


    ×
  • Export citation
  • Recommend to librarian
  • Recommend this book

    Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

    Legislative Deferrals
    • Online ISBN: 9780511509872
    • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511509872
    Please enter your name
    Please enter a valid email address
    Who would you like to send this to? *
    ×
  • Buy the print book

Book description

Why do unelected federal judges have so much power to make policy in the United States? Why were federal judges able to thwart apparent legislative victories won by labor organizations in the Lochner era? Most scholars who have addressed such questions assume that the answer lies in the judiciary's constitutionally guaranteed independence, and thus worry that insulated judges threaten democracy when they stray from baseline positions chosen by legislators. This book argues for a fundamental shift in the way scholars think about judicial policy-making. Scholars need to notice that legislators also empower judges to make policy as a means of escaping accountability. This study of legislative deference to the courts offers a dramatic reinterpretation of the history of twentieth-century labor law and shows how attention to legislative deferrals can help scholars to address vexing questions about the consequences of judicial power in a democracy.

Reviews

    • Aa
    • Aa
Refine List
Actions for selected content:
Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Send to Kindle
  • Send to Dropbox
  • Send to Google Drive
  • Send content to

    To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to .

    To send content to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

    Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

    Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

    Please be advised that item(s) you selected are not available.
    You are about to send:
    ×

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
×

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.


IsaacBalbus, . 1977. “Commodity Form and Legal Form: An Essay on the ‘Relative Autonomy’ of the Law.” Law and Society Review 11:571–88

Jonathan D.Casper, 1976. “The Supreme Court and National Policy Making.” American Political Science Review 70:550–63

RobertCover, . 1983. “The Supreme Court, 1982 Term–Foreword: Nomos and Narrative.” Harvard Law Review 97:4–68

DanielErnst, . 1989a. “The Yellow-Dog Contract and Liberal Reform, 1917–1932.” Labor History 30:251–74

William N.EskridgeJr., , 1991. “Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Decisions.” Yale Law Review 101:331–455

BarryFriedman, . 2000. “The History Of The Countermajoritarian Difficulty, Part Four: Law's Politics.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 148:971–1064

HowardGillman, . 2002. “How Political Parties Can Use the Courts to Advance Their Agendas: Federal Courts in the United States, 1875–1891.” American Political Science Review 96:511–24

MichaelGoldfield, . 1989. “Worker Insurgency, Radical Organization, and New Deal Labor Legislation.” American Political Science Review 83:1257-82

Robert W.Gordon, 1984. “Critical Legal Histories.” Stanford Law Review 36: 57–125

Mark A.Graber, 1993. “The Non-Majoritarian Difficulty: Legislative Deference to the Judiciary.” Studies in American Political Development 7:35-72

Mark A.Graber, 1998. “Establishing Judicial Review? Schooner Peggy and the Early Marshall Court.” Political Research Quarterly 51:7–25

VictoriaHattam, . 1994. “Reply to Lovell: Politics of Commitment or Calculation?” Studies in American Political Development 8:103–10

MichaelHayes, . 1978. “The Semi-Sovereign Interest Groups.” Journal of Politics 40:134–61

Oliver WendellHolmesJr., , 1894. “Privilege, Malice, and Intent.” Harvard Law Review 8:1–14

Charles O.Jones, 1968. “Joseph G. Cannon and Howard W. Smith: An Essay on the Limits of Leadership in the House of Representatives.” Journal of Politics 30:617–44

DallasJones, . 1957. “The Enigma of the Clayton Act.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 10:201–21

KarlKlare, . 1979. “Law Making as Praxis.” Telos 123–35

StanleyKutler, . 1962. “Labor, the Clayton Act, and the Supreme Courts.” Labor History 3:19–38

MichaelLewis-Beck, and John R. Alford. 1980: “Can Government Regulate Safety? The Coal Mine Example.” American Political Science Review 74:745–56

GeorgeLovell, . 1994. “The Ambiguities of Labor's Legislative Reforms in New York State in the Late Nineteenth Century.” Studies in American Political Development 8:81–102

Andrew D.Martin, 2001. “Congressional Decision Making and the Separation of Powers.” American Political Science Review 95:361–78

KarenOrren, . 1995. “The Primacy of Labor in American Constitutional Development.” American Political Science Review 89:377–88

James GrayPope, . 1997. “Labor's Constitution of Freedom.” Yale Law Journal 106:941–1031

David M.Rabban, 1994. “The IWW Free Speech Fights and Popular Conceptions of Free Expression before World War I.” Virginia Law Review 80:1055–158

James R.Rogers, 2001. “Information and Judicial Review: A Signaling Game of Legislative-Judicial Interaction.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 84–99

MichaelRogin, . 1962. “Voluntarism: The Political Functions of an Antipolitical Doctrine.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 15:521–35

Jeffrey A.Segal, 1997. “Separation of Powers Games in the Positive Theory of Law and Courts.” American Political Science Review 91:28–44

Virginia A.Seitz, 1984. “Legal, Legislative, and Managerial Responses to the Organization of Supervising Employees in the 1940s.” American Journal of Legal History 28:193

ThedaSkocpol, . 1980. “Political Response to Capitalist Crisis: Neo-Marxist Theories of the State and the Case of the New Deal.” Politics and Society 10:155–201

ThedaSkocpol, and Kenneth Finegold. 1990. “Explaining New Deal Labor Policy” (with response by Michael Goldfield). American Political Science Review 84:1297–1304

Katherine van WezelStone, . 1981. “The Post-War Paradigm in American Labor Law.” Yale Law Journal 90:1509–80

David M.Trubeck, 1984. “Where the Action Is: Critical Legal Studies and Empiricism.” Stanford Law Review 36:575–623

University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 1981. “Comment: The Radical Potential of the Wagner Act and the Duty to Bargain Collectively.” 129:1392–1426