Timothy Sandefur offers concrete policy changes that he believes would fix the Indian Child Welfare Act.
How active should the judiciary be? And on what grounds?
Evan Bernick argues that the Supreme Court should actively protect individual rights and constitutional structure.
David A. Strauss argues that "judicial engagement" is little more than a buzzword.
Barry P. McDonald explains why the U.S. judicial system properly defers to legislators in many types of cases.
Edward Whelan argues that the real question concerns constitutional originalism, not activism or restraint.
Evan Bernick replies to David A. Strauss, arguing that judicial engagement is a genuine obligation of judges, and not a mere smokescreen for politics.
Evan Bernick replies to Barry McDonald: Judicial engagement is required by the Constitution itself, which embodies the will of the people.
Evan Bernick answers Ed Whelan: Judicial engagement is both substantive and necessary.
Edward Whelan replies to Evan Bernick on judicial engagement.