The Problem of Judicial Abdication

Clark Neily joins us this week for a discussion on judicial engagement. Neily contrasts judges’ findings in cases with stringent standards of review—which he characterizes as a genuine quest for the truth from a truly neutral adjudicator, decided on the basis of evidence—with what he calls judicial abdication: the tendency of judges to default to a rational basis review of speculative justification by the government. They also discuss the right to earn a living, judicial activism, and the defining essence of the Constitution.Show Notes and Further ReadingClark Neily, Terms of Engagement: How Our Courts Should Enforce the Constitution’s Promise of Limited Government (book)Timothy Sandefur, The Right to Earn a Living: Economic Freedom and the Law (book)Clark Neily is on Twitter at @ConLawWarrior. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.