Con Law, Judicial Review Help Forum

[stinger35]

i understand the concept of judicial review but the casebooks and hornbooks don't spend much time on it outside of the basics. As I stated in another thread, my prof said that 70% of our exam will be policy, and most of the policy will be judicial review arguments.

I am having trouble finding info on judicial review re: commerce clause, judicial review re: rights, etc. I am basically attempting to understand judicial review questions regarding every separate aspect of the course we have covered. Can't find it in chemerinksy and emmanuels...am I really gonna have to go back and read the cases finding dissents and concurrences about why the court should or shouldnt get involved in a certain aspect? Any help or advice would be appreciated.

[Anonymous Loser]

Chemerinsky devotes over 200 pages to the authority for/scope of judicial review. Is your version missing the second chapter?

[mikeytwoshoes]

Chemerinsky devotes over 200 pages to the authority for/scope of judicial review. Is your version missing the second chapter?

Oh snap.

[stinger35]

Chemerinsky devotes over 200 pages to the authority for/scope of judicial review. Is your version missing the second chapter?

Actually, yes. Things are pretty cut-throat here. Guess someone swiped it when I left my shit at a desk in the library at some point.

[270910]

Chemerinsky devotes over 200 pages to the authority for/scope of judicial review. Is your version missing the second chapter?

Actually, yes. Things are pretty cut-throat here. Guess someone swiped it when I left my shit at a desk in the library at some point.

?

The wording in your original post makes it seem like you have no idea what you're talking about.

There's judicial review, which is that SCOTUS gets to review acts of Congress (Marbury) and State courts (Martin). It's by and large extraordinarily cut and dry.

When you talk about judicial review of aspects of the course, it sounds like what you really mean is scrutiny level - i.e. level of deference given to the actions of other elements of the government. In that case... uh... every page of every chapter in your case book, notes, and hornbook talk about that. That's what the course is, man.

[vanwinkle]

When you talk about judicial review of aspects of the course, it sounds like what you really mean is scrutiny level - i.e. level of deference given to the actions of other elements of the government. In that case... uh... every page of every chapter in your case book, notes, and hornbook talk about that. That's what the course is, man.

This is actually the first explanation of the course I've heard that makes it make sense.

[smalltown]

Sure you're not confusing justiciability and judicial review? Justiciability is whether or not a court should get involved, for reasons such as mootness and political question. Judicial review is just when a court reviews a decisions by other branches, which as has been said, is what the book is about.

[stinger35]

Yes. I understand what judicial review is. I also understand what justiciability is as well. Disco: While I thank you for the compliment, what I wrote is literally word for word what my damn prof said about the exam - which is exactly why I am having so much trouble understanding what he is getting at. Also, I understand that it is cut & dry about what the Supreme Court can review which is basically what I said in my post - because it is cut and dry, Apparently, what my professor is asking for is arguments for and against judicial review - like what is contained in some of the federalist papers. However, some of these arguments are hard to find because, as you were nice enough to state, it is pretty damn established that the court can review the various types of decisions that they do. I was simply hoping someone knew a good policy book or something that could assist. Clearly my professor is unconventional in this area and with 70% policy on the exam Im just lookin for some help.

[Netopalis]

I doubt seriously that the exam can be 70% judicial review. That would...that would be insane. Your professor is either pulling your leg or is completely out of touch with reality.

If you need policy advice, I understand that Tribe's hornbook is supposed to cover that pretty well, but I've never read it, nor do I know many students who have used it. Your mileage will almost definitely vary. Really, though, you don't think that your Chemerinsky has enough policy? Are we reading the same book?

[smalltown]

Your professor sounds like a peach. Sorry about that. Obviously an unorthodox approach by all our replies. Maybe go to his office and take a peak at the books on his shelves. That usually tips their hand on where their sweet spot is.