Scott E Lemieux
Biographic Data
| ID | 4391475 |
|---|---|
| NAME | Scott E Lemieux |
| GIVEN NAMES | Scott E |
| FAMILY NAME | Lemieux |
| SIGNATURE | LEMIEUX S E |
| AFFILIATIONS | College of Saint Rose |
| VERIFIED | No |
| TOTAL WORKS | 7 |
| TOTAL CITATIONS | 16 |
| AUTHOR COUNT | 7 |
| EDITOR COUNT | 0 |
| FIRST PUBLICATION YEAR | 1999 |
| LATEST PUBLICATION YEAR | 2022 |
| H-INDEX | 2 |
The Counter-Majoritarian Difficulties of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health
This essay claims that overruling Roe will mean more democratic contestation rely on the obviously (in the American context) false assumption that other political institutions are “majoritarian” alternatives to “counter-majoritarian” courts. But the counter-majoritarian aspects of American constitutionalism and politics (including gerrymandering, malapportionment, and other factors that generally lead to the massive over-representation of rural w…
Judicial Supremacy, Judicial Power, and the Finality of Constitutional Rulings
It is widely assumed that the Supreme Court of the United States has established supremacy over contested constitutional questions, with the power to make final determinations of constitutional meaning. Since the 1960s, most scholars have assumed that legislatures and courts are engaged in a power struggle in which countermajoritarian courts can assert their will over majoritarian legislatures. More recently, a new generation of scholarship has d…
The Two Browns
The colorblind individualism that pervades American politics and society keeps schools segregated although Americans support integrated public education. While the 1954 US Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education has never been overruled, later cases and policies have encouraged its retrenchment. We argue in this multi-disciplinary review of published literature that there are two different versions of Brown—the iconic, pro-integration …
Compared to What? Judicial Review and Other Veto Points in Contemporary Democratic Theory
Many democratic and jurisprudential theorists have too often uncritically accepted Alexander Bickel's notion of “the countermajoritarian difficulty” when considering the relationship between judicial review and democracy; this is the case for arguments both for and against judicial review. This framework is both theoretically and empirically unsustainable. Democracy is not wholly synonymous with majoritarianism, and judicial review is not inheren…
Legislative Defaults
A generation of scholars has evaluated landmark Supreme Court rulings like Roe v. Wade with the assumption that counter-majoritarian judges are able to impose their will on elected legislators. Much recent scholarship on the courts has shown, however, that the assumptions about institutional power that underlie the counter-majoritarian model of judicial review are wrong. Judicial capacities to strike down laws are not fixed by constitutional desi…
Beyond the “Countermajoritarian Difficulty
The "countermajoritarian difficulty," first formulated by Alexander Bickel almost fifty years ago, has been a profoundly influential starting point for those who critically examine the relationship between democracy and constitutional judicial review. However, the inadequacies of this framework are manifest. This framework rests, first, on unwarranted empirical assumptions about the "majoritarianism" of legislative action and the "countermajorita…
Judicial Discretion and Fundamental Justice
On August 22, 1991 the Supreme Court of Canada delivered its judgment in R. v. Seaboyer.1 At issue was the constitutionality of Criminal Code provisions limiting a defendant's ability to introduce evidence about a complainant's previous sexual activity or reputation in trials for sexual assault. Writing for a seven-justice majority, Justice Beverly McLachlin declared that the prohibition against the admission of sexual activity evidence infringed…
Legislative Defaults
A generation of scholars has evaluated landmark Supreme Court rulings like Roe v. Wade with the assumption that counter-majoritarian judges are able to impose their will on elected legislators. Much recent scholarship on the courts has shown, however, that the assumptions about institutional power that underlie the counter-majoritarian model of judicial review are wrong. Judicial capacities to strike down laws are not fixed by constitutional desi…
Beyond the “Countermajoritarian Difficulty
The "countermajoritarian difficulty," first formulated by Alexander Bickel almost fifty years ago, has been a profoundly influential starting point for those who critically examine the relationship between democracy and constitutional judicial review. However, the inadequacies of this framework are manifest. This framework rests, first, on unwarranted empirical assumptions about the "majoritarianism" of legislative action and the "countermajorita…
The Counter-Majoritarian Difficulties of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health
This essay claims that overruling Roe will mean more democratic contestation rely on the obviously (in the American context) false assumption that other political institutions are “majoritarian” alternatives to “counter-majoritarian” courts. But the counter-majoritarian aspects of American constitutionalism and politics (including gerrymandering, malapportionment, and other factors that generally lead to the massive over-representation of rural w…
Compared to What? Judicial Review and Other Veto Points in Contemporary Democratic Theory
Many democratic and jurisprudential theorists have too often uncritically accepted Alexander Bickel's notion of “the countermajoritarian difficulty” when considering the relationship between judicial review and democracy; this is the case for arguments both for and against judicial review. This framework is both theoretically and empirically unsustainable. Democracy is not wholly synonymous with majoritarianism, and judicial review is not inheren…
Judicial Discretion and Fundamental Justice
On August 22, 1991 the Supreme Court of Canada delivered its judgment in R. v. Seaboyer.1 At issue was the constitutionality of Criminal Code provisions limiting a defendant's ability to introduce evidence about a complainant's previous sexual activity or reputation in trials for sexual assault. Writing for a seven-justice majority, Justice Beverly McLachlin declared that the prohibition against the admission of sexual activity evidence infringed…
Judicial Discretion and Fundamental Justice
On August 22, 1991 the Supreme Court of Canada delivered its judgment in R. v. Seaboyer.1 At issue was the constitutionality of Criminal Code provisions limiting a defendant's ability to introduce evidence about a complainant's previous sexual activity or reputation in trials for sexual assault. Writing for a seven-justice majority, Justice Beverly McLachlin declared that the prohibition against the admission of sexual activity evidence infringed…
Beyond the “Countermajoritarian Difficulty
The "countermajoritarian difficulty," first formulated by Alexander Bickel almost fifty years ago, has been a profoundly influential starting point for those who critically examine the relationship between democracy and constitutional judicial review. However, the inadequacies of this framework are manifest. This framework rests, first, on unwarranted empirical assumptions about the "majoritarianism" of legislative action and the "countermajorita…
Legislative Defaults
A generation of scholars has evaluated landmark Supreme Court rulings like Roe v. Wade with the assumption that counter-majoritarian judges are able to impose their will on elected legislators. Much recent scholarship on the courts has shown, however, that the assumptions about institutional power that underlie the counter-majoritarian model of judicial review are wrong. Judicial capacities to strike down laws are not fixed by constitutional desi…
Compared to What? Judicial Review and Other Veto Points in Contemporary Democratic Theory
Many democratic and jurisprudential theorists have too often uncritically accepted Alexander Bickel's notion of “the countermajoritarian difficulty” when considering the relationship between judicial review and democracy; this is the case for arguments both for and against judicial review. This framework is both theoretically and empirically unsustainable. Democracy is not wholly synonymous with majoritarianism, and judicial review is not inheren…
The Two Browns
The colorblind individualism that pervades American politics and society keeps schools segregated although Americans support integrated public education. While the 1954 US Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education has never been overruled, later cases and policies have encouraged its retrenchment. We argue in this multi-disciplinary review of published literature that there are two different versions of Brown—the iconic, pro-integration …
Judicial Supremacy, Judicial Power, and the Finality of Constitutional Rulings
It is widely assumed that the Supreme Court of the United States has established supremacy over contested constitutional questions, with the power to make final determinations of constitutional meaning. Since the 1960s, most scholars have assumed that legislatures and courts are engaged in a power struggle in which countermajoritarian courts can assert their will over majoritarian legislatures. More recently, a new generation of scholarship has d…
The Counter-Majoritarian Difficulties of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health
This essay claims that overruling Roe will mean more democratic contestation rely on the obviously (in the American context) false assumption that other political institutions are “majoritarian” alternatives to “counter-majoritarian” courts. But the counter-majoritarian aspects of American constitutionalism and politics (including gerrymandering, malapportionment, and other factors that generally lead to the massive over-representation of rural w…
Law (7 works) · Political science (7 works) · Sociology (7 works) · Law (6 works) · Politics (6 works) · Judicial and Constitutional Studies (5 works) · Law and economics (5 works) · Judicial review (4 works) · Supreme court (4 works) · Democracy (3 works)