Timothy Sandefur argues that judicial restraint enables the growth of government at the expense of individual liberties.
Kermit Roosevelt III discusses judicial activism and restraint. He finds neither is always appropriate.
Sandhya Bathija argues that restrained courts have done best to protect rights from the interests of the wealthy and powerful.
David R. Upham argues the Founders intended a significant democratic element to our Constitution; fidelity to it requires some judicial restraint.
Timothy Sandefur replies to Kermit Roosevelt III on judicial deference and the roles of the elected branches in protecting the Constitution.
Kermit Roosevelt III responds to Sandefur's charge that modern courts are too deferent to the legislature.
Powerful private interests can easily manipulate legislatures. That's exactly why courts need to watch over them so closely.
Today's judiciary is philosophically far removed from its individualist, classical liberal foundations.
Sandhya Bathija argues that libertarian judicial philosophy opposed many important civil rights gains, and would do so again if we returned to it.
David R. Upham argues that the people can indeed be trusted to guard their own liberties. For the most part.