Very well-written and thought-out summary of the differences between judicial restraint and judicial activism, from the history of the 14th Amendment to today. The author writes clearly enough for non-lawyers without missing many of the nuances that lawyers steeped in the constitutional history would expect.

Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court," by Damon Root, was written so that the concepts of judicial activism and judicial restraint would be clear and understandable to anyone reading who didn't have a law degree. That being said, I still found myself re-reading several passages to make sure I fully understood what point Root was trying to make. The book also provides background on major U.S. legal figures, as well as their personal philosophies and contribution to the court. It was a good, if deep, read. I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the U.S. legal system, as well as anyone interested in seeing how some of the important decisions made by the Supreme Court came to be. ( )

Damon Root's Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court provides an excellent overview of the concepts of judicial restraint and judicial activism. The author explains how the restraint / acitivism divide does not follow the traditional liberal versus conservative split. Much of the book is devoted to the growing split between conservatives and libertarians in cases involving gun rights, abortion, and gay marriage. The book provides a detailed description of the legal strategies used in arguing recent important Supreme Court cases on property rights, gun rights, and Obamacare.

Root's libertarian bias is evident in his positive view of judicial activism in recent gun rights and campaign finance cases. In this era of corporations as persons and umlimited campaign spending as free speech, perhaps its time for some old-time progressive action by legislative bodies and judicial restraint by the courts. ( )

For some reason, I thought "Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court" was going to be about the political battles over nominees to the Supreme Court. I was wrong. This very readable book discussed the difference between the concepts of judicial restraint and judicial activism. I had always considered that the difference was in who's ox was being gored; i.e., it's judicial activism if a court decision goes against my interests. Wrong again.

I was taught in my high school US Government classes that the Constitution was set up to protect "We the People" against mob rule. In today's world that essentially means "governing by polls" And that the Supreme Court's job was to make sure that laws were constitutional. Turns out my teachers, and me by extension, were wrong once more.

The author, Damon Root, tells us that judicial restraint = judicial deference = bending over backwards to ensure that laws passed by Congress are upheld, regardless of any violation of individual rights. Further, judicial activism - usually decried as a liberal plot - these days is actually the darling of libertarianism, and finds that the Constitution says individual rights should trump deference to Congress.

All of this cut against the grain of what I'd been taught that I had to read it twice to make sure I understood the basic concepts. Another reading is probably due. I found Mr. Root's book to be interesting, well-researched, well-written, and I will find a way to read more of his works. His political beliefs are probably somewhat to the right of mine, but I always enjoy hearing the other side's arguments, especially when they are laid out as well as this one was. i recommend it to anyone with more than a passing interest in how our government works. ( )

I found "Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court," by Damon Root to be written in a way that made the history and ideas clear to non-lawyers such as me. I gained a better understanding of judicial restraint and judicial activism. I learned about major legal figures such as Eric Field that I'd never heard of, and more about major legal figures such as Oliver Wendell Homes about whom I'd mostly known the name and a few sparse details. So, this book is a welcome addition to my library.

All of the above said, this is not a book about which non-lawyers will remember much more than some of the general ideas it presents unless he/she reads it a second time and studies it carefully.. ( )