Document Type

Conference Proceeding

Publication Date


Publication Information

155 U. Pa. L. Rev. PENNumbra 112 (2006)


"Judicial activism," writes Professor Kermit Roosevelt, of Penn, has been employed as an "excessive and unhelpful" charge--one "essentially empty of content." As a substitute, Roosevelt reviews here the framework for analysis of Supreme Court opinions that receives fuller treatment in his recent book, The Myth of Judicial Activism. Professor Richard W. Garnett, of Notre Dame, is willing to go along with "much, though not all, of" Roosevelt's position. Ultimately, Garnett suggests "that 'judicial activism' might be salvaged, and used as a way of identifying and criticizing decisions...that fail to demonstrate th[e] virtue" of constitutional "humility."


Reprinted with permission of University of Pennsylvania Law Review PENNumbra.

Included in

Legal History Commons