Author Archive | Clark Neily (Institute for Justice), guest-blogging

Last fall I wrote a series of posts explaining the Institute for Justice’s call for “judicial engagement” and the rejection of reflexive deference toward other branches of government. Eugene kindly invited me back for a follow-up in light of recent events that underscore the importance of judicial engagement. The first, of course, is last week’s […]

The key question posed by the Institute for Justice’s call for judicial engagement is not whether everyone can agree on a single theory of the Constitution, but whether we should insist that judges make a sincere effort to interpret and apply the Constitution in all cases. It appears most people believe there are at least […]

As discussed in my first two posts, the Institute for Justice coined the term “judicial engagement” out of our conviction that judges are not properly enforcing constitutional limits on government power. This is not merely a disagreement with particular interpretations or results, but rather a belief on our part that in many settings — including, […]

As I noted yesterday, the Institute for Justice created the Center for Judicial Engagement in response to our belief that America has more government today than the Constitution authorizes and that courts are systematically failing to enforce constitutional limits on government power. A significant factor in that underenforcement may well be the drumbeat accusations of […]

First, I’d like to thank Eugene for the opportunity to guest-blog about judicial engagement this week. The Institute for Justice coined the term “judicial engagement” (and created the Center for Judicial Engagement) out of our conviction that America has more government than the Constitution authorizes and that this is largely due to the failure of […]