The Warren Court and American Politics by Lucas A. Powe Jr.

From the Publisher

The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren was the most revolutionary and controversial Supreme Court in American history. But in what sense? Challenging the reigning consensus that the Warren Court, fundamentally, was protecting minorities, Lucas Powe revives the valuable tradition of looking at the Supreme Court in the wide political environment to find the Warren Court a functioning partner in Kennedy-Johnson liberalism. Thus the Court helped to impose national liberal-elite values on groups that were outliers to that tradition--the white South, rural America, and areas of Roman Catholic dominance.

In a learned and lively narrative, Powe discusses over 200 significant rulings: the explosive Brown decision, which fundamentally challenged the Southern way of life; reapportionment (one person, one vote), which changed the political balance of American legislatures; the gradual elimination of anti-Communist domestic security programs; the reform of criminal procedures (Mapp, Gideon, Miranda); the ban on school-sponsored prayer; and a new law on pornography.

Most of these decisions date from 1962, when those who shaped the dominant ideology of the Warren Court of storied fame gained a fifth secure liberal vote. The Justices of the majority were prominent individuals, brimming with confidence, willing to help shape a revolution and see if it would last.

Economist

An intriguing...history of the path-breaking, even revolutionary, court under Chief Justice Earl Warren in the 1950s and 1960s.

New Republic - Jeffrey Rosen

In an important book, Powe argues that the familiar debate about the merits of the Warren Court is..., wrong.

Publishers Weekly

Powe's introduction proclaims a dual purpose: first, "to help revive a valuable tradition of discussing the Supreme Court in the context of American politics"; second, "to replace stereotypes with information" that he has synthesized from a wide range of sources on the Warren court. The book's structure--four chronological parts divided into thematic chapters (civil rights, domestic security, democratic representation, church/state, press freedom, obscenity, police and criminal justice procedures, wealth and poverty)--is intelligently conceived to deal with the more than 200 decisions discussed, but the results fall short of both goals. The bulk of the book consists of too-short case summaries, including background, appeals process, decisions, concurrences and dissents, with little attempt (until the final chapter) at providing analytic unity to the material; accounts of political context are only occasionally striking, more usually superficial. Despite his proclaimed neutrality on the court's decisions (aside from Brown), University of Texas law professor Powe fails to offer satisfying analysis of either Warren's supporters or his critics (and those to the justice's left barely register at all). The result is a contradictory portrait of the court as arbitrary, arrogant and dogmatic, even though Powe offers examples showing that the nine justices did not march in lockstep. The additional failure to consider much earlier cases (Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson) that were far-reaching in their effects further reinforces the highly debatable picture of the Warren court as uniquely arbitrary, rather than simply uniquely liberal. Photos not seen by PW. (Mar.) Copyright 2000 Cahners Business Information.|

Dallas Morning News - Philip Seib

Powe has written an appraisal of the Warren Court that is splendidly encyclopedic in breadth and splendidly nonencyclopedic in writing style. He is not shy about offering his own opinions, and this learned and lively history is sure to inspire controversy as well as admiration.

Product Details

• Table of Contents

Table of Contents