The Politics of Judicial Review

I. Introduction

In the legal academy, scholarship about judicial review is predominantly normative. It is largely about how judges should decide cases1 and what posture they ought to take toward the work of other institutions.2 This normative focus on the behavior of judges is common irrespective

Outside the legal academy, the interest in how judges behave is more "positive." That is to say, the focus in other disciplines is not so much on how judges should behave, as on how they do and why.3 Positive theorists ask what motivates judges to decide cases as they do and what forces are likely to influence judges' decisions.

The normative and positive projects have traveled on largely separate tracks, in part because the forces positive theorists identify as influencing judges commonly are political ones. "Politics" is used here in a fairly capacious sense, referring to any influences on a judge's resolution of a case other than an independent judgment of the law as applied to the facts before the court.4 But the political forces identified by positive scholars are often quite base: Many positive theorists suggest that judicial ideology plays a significant role in how judges decide cases5 and that judges respond to pressures from other political actors.6 Positive scholars believe these forces play a large hand in shaping the content of the law, especially constitutional law.