| Book Review | The Journal of American History, 87.2

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to JAH online. About 267 words from this article are provided below; about 318 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the Organization of American Historians, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time.
If you are not a member of the Organization of American Historians, you can:: • Join the OAH and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the Journal of American History.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two-hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the Journal of American History (86.1-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the Journal of American History.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

| Book Review | The Journal of American History, 87.2 | The History Cooperative

Book Review

Campaigns and the Court: The U.S. Supreme Court in Presidential Elections. By Donald Grier Stephenson Jr. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999. xvi, 363 pp. Cloth, $49.50, isbn 0-231-10034-5. Paper, $19.50, isbn 0-231-10035-3.)

The Supreme Court, the journalist Finley Peter Dunne's fictional Chicago barkeeper Mr. Dooley sagely observed in 1901, "follows th' iliction returns." Evidently, Mr. Dooley didn't know the half of it. According to Professor Donald Grier Stephenson Jr., the Court's "entanglement" with campaign politics has appeared before and during, as well as after, at least one-fifth of presidential contests. Stephenson's argument is based on a series of "propositions" about the intersection of the Supreme Court and the electoral process. The Court is "more likely" to become a partisan campaign issue when it has rejected or "negated" a "policy choice" made by a state or another branch of the federal government. If the Court is on the "losing side" of an election, its subsequent decisions will tend to generate controversy with the new ruling majority, but it will ultimately be "responsive" to changing political tides. The Court becomes an issue in a presidential contest because of specific decisions that it either has rendered or is believed about to render. The adversarial nature of litigation fits right into the two-party system, allowing one party to "attack" the Court for its ruling and the other party presumably to defend it. Finally, when the Supreme Court is an issue in a campaign, it often coincides with a more general debate over the power of judicial review and the role of the Court in our constitutional polity. . . .

There are about 318 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.