Tuesday, October 28, 2014
7:45am Continental Breakfast
Founding Dean, Distinguished Professor of Law,
UC Irvine School of Law
500 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
$20 General Admission
$43 Includes CHemerinsky’s book
>The Case Against the Supreme Court, Los Angeles Times, Sept. 21
Erwin Chemerinsky is a graduate of Harvard Law School and the founding Dean and Distinguished Professor of Law and Raymond Pryke Professor of First Amendment Law, at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, with a joint appointment in Political Science.
In his new book, The Case Against the Supreme Court, preeminent constitutional scholar offers a hard-hitting analysis of the Supreme Court over the last two hundred years.
It is a common perception that the Supreme Court is “objective,” but Erwin Chemerinsky, one of the country’s preeminent constitutional lawyers, argues that the Court is made up of fallible men and women who inevitably base decisions on their own biases and prejudices. He offers a hard-hitting analysis of the Supreme Court over the last two hundred years, detailing, case by case, how the Supreme Court has largely failed at its most important tasks throughout American history and at the most important times.
Chemerinsky proves that for two centuries the Supreme Court has been far more likely to uphold government abuses of power than to stop them. Chemerinsky reviews the Court’s historic failures, such as protecting minorities, from slavery to segregation and gender discrimination, and enforcing the Constitution in times of crisis, from WWI through 9/11. The book also focuses on the present and discusses how the Court has, for example, protected business at the expense of employees, consumers, and the public, protected the government from being sued at the expense of those who are injured by it, and distorted the political process through its recent decisions concerning campaign finance and voting rights.
Chemerinsky passionately argues for term limits for justices and a reassessment of the institution as a whole. He argues that it is worth keeping the Supreme Court and judicial review, but details a host of reforms that should be implemented. He concludes that the Supreme Court is a revered institution, but we need a more mature and realistic view of the Court system and the confirmation process for judges—only then can we assess the true meaning of having a Supreme Court in the United States.