Several of the most divisive moral conflicts that have beset Americans in the period since World War II have been transmuted into constitutional conflicts and resolved as such. In his new book, eminent legal scholar Michael Perry evaluates the grave charge that the modern Supreme Court has engineered a "judicial usurpation of politics." In particular, Perry inquires which of several major Fourteenth Amendment conflicts--over race segregation, race-based affirmative action, sex-based discrimination, homosexuality, abortion, and physician-assisted suicide--have been resolved as they should have been. He lays the necessary groundwork for his inquiry by addressing questions of both constitutional theory and constitutional history. A clear-eyed examination of some of the perennial controversies in American life, We the People is a major contribution to modern constitutional studies.

Through expert analysis and primary documents, The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment explores how rulings throughout the Courts history have shaped the guidelines under which Americans have been tried, convicted, sentenced, and put to death for capital offenses. Historian Michael Parrish recounts the history of the Courts involvement in all aspects of the death penalty, chronicling the major cases that define American capital punishment jurisprudence. Placing considerable emphasis upon twentieth century developments, the book examines the impact of these rulings upon the behavior of legislators, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and defendants. The book also discusses in great detail the impact of race on the death penalty. As defendants and victims, African-Americans on trial for their lives in Southern courts became the central figures in the design and redesign of capital punishment in the twentieth century. The book illustrates how the Courts effective counsel decisions have played a major role in how states shape their public defender systems and how they respond to the claims of impoverished defendants charged with capital crimes. Other important topics include the Courts rulings on the constitutionality of execution methods; public opinion; the execution of minors and the mentally ill; and recent state death penalty repeals.

When justices write or join a concurring opinion, they demonstrate their preferences over substantive legal rules. Concurrences provide a way for justices to express their views about the law, to engage in a dialogue of law with each other, the legal community, the public, and Congress. This important study is the first systematic examination of the content of Supreme Court concurrences. While previous work on Supreme Court decision making focuses solely on the outcome of cases, Pamela C. Corley tackles the content of Supreme Court concurring opinions to show the reasoning behind each justice's decision. Using both qualitative and quantitative methods of analysis, Concurring Opinion Writing on the U.S. Supreme Court offers a rich and detailed portrait of judicial decision making by studying the process of opinion writing and the formation of legal doctrine through the unique lens of concurrences.

The country's top legal reporters comment on and analyze some of the most important oral arguments in recent court history