Truman's Court: A Study in Judicial Restraint by Frances Howell RudkoTruman's Court: A Study in Judicial Restraint by Frances Howell Rudko

Truman's Court: A Study in Judicial Restraint

byFrances Howell Rudko

Hardcover | September 1, 1988

Pricing and Purchase Info

$85.46 online 
$94.95 list price save 9%
Earn 427 plum® points

Prices and offers may vary in store


In stock online

Ships free on orders over $25

Not available in stores


Much of the debate surrounding the Supreme Court can be traced to the notion that the Court is primarily a political rather than a judicial institution. When the Court is viewed from an ideological standpoint, it becomes tempting, for example, to equate judicial "restraint" with conservatism, and "activism" with a liberal political perspective. In her study of the Truman Court, Rudko demonstrates the fallacy of the political approach. Focusing of the record of President Truman's four "liberal" appointees, she looks at the judicial philosophy underlying important decisions involving the rights of individuals and shows how judicial issues--especially the balance between restraint and activism--have determined the decision-making process.
Title:Truman's Court: A Study in Judicial RestraintFormat:HardcoverDimensions:186 pages, 9.41 × 7.24 × 0.98 inPublished:September 1, 1988Publisher:Chemical Publishing Company, I

The following ISBNs are associated with this title:

ISBN - 10:0313263167

ISBN - 13:9780313263163

Look for similar items by category:


Editorial Reviews

?A concise, well-written examination by a lawyer-historian of the judicial restraint philosophies of President Truman's fourth appointees to the Supreme Court: Harold Burton, Fred Vinson, Tom Clark, and Sherman Minton. Rudko's analyses of the four men's opinions in criminal procedure, loyalty-security, racial discrimination, and alien rights cases show that Truman was far more successful than most presidents in choosing justices whose view of the judicial role matched his own. Rudko acknowledges that none of the four had an intellectually well-grounded conception of judicial restraint, a la Frankfurter. Nevertheless, she argues, a principled commitment to restraint explains the Truman appointees' votes better than the anitlibertarian bias sometimes ascribed to them. For upper-division undergraduates and graduate students.?-Choice