Judicial Compulsions

Rabkin, Jeremy

ISBN 10: 0465036872 / ISBN 13: 9780465036875

Published by Basic Books (edition First Edition), 1989

About this Item

With dust jacket. It's a well-cared-for item that has seen limited use. The item may show minor signs of wear. All the text is legible, with all pages included. It may have slight markings and/or highlighting.

Seller Inventory # 0465036872-11-1-29

Bibliographic Details

• Title: Judicial Compulsions
• Publisher: Basic Books (edition First Edition)
• Publication Date: 1989
• Language: English
• ISBN 10: 0465036872
• ISBN 13: 9780465036875
• Binding: Hardcover
• Edition: First Edition.
• Condition: Very Good
• Dust Jacket Condition: Dust Jacket Included

About this title

Synopsis

Argues that the courts should have only a limited role in federal policymaking, and discusses examples of the courts becoming too involved in setting standards

Reviews

Since the 1960s, environmentalists, consumer advocates, safety experts and civil rights activists have used the courts as an arena to demand that regulatory agencies adopt more rigorous enforcement policies. While public interest groups hail these actions, Rabkin finds their support misguided and counterproductive. In what often reads like a sophisticated apology for deregulation, the Cornell University political scientist argues that much public-interest litigation is essentially unconstitutional, being predicated on the false assumption that regulatory benefits are "rights." He further charges that advocacy groups' initiatives have squandered the energies of the Food and Drug Administration, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Office for Civil Rights, miring these agencies in legalistic squabbles and bureaucratic inertia. The courts, he claims, have neither the power nor the expertise to provide the benefits that special-interest advocates seek. The case studies in this densely argued brief are open to interpretations vastly different from the author's.
Copyright 1989 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Rabkin (political science, Cornell) argues that current adminstrative law distorts constitutional law and permits interest groups to control administrative agencies' policy decisions. He finds courts play an intrusive role in the agency decisions, mainly at the behest of major advocacy groups. Rabkin argues that the decline of constitutional accountability leads to a haphazard legal culture and inconsistent policies. He uses three case studies, from the Office of Civil Rights, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Occupational Health and Safety Adminstration, to develop his perspectives on constitutional and administrative law. Rabkin challenges contemporary political thinking about government accountability, and his analysis will provoke individuals concerned with the future development of American society.
- Steven Puro, St. Louis Univ.
Copyright 1989 Reed Business Information, Inc.