A non-lawyer’s guide to the worst Supreme Court decisions of the modern era
The Dirty Dozen takes on twelve Supreme Court cases that changed American history—and yet are not well known to most Americans.
Starting in the New Deal era, the Court has allowed breathtaking expansions of government power that significantly reduced individual rights and abandoned limited federal government as envisioned by the founders.
For example: • Helvering v. Davis (1937) allowed the government to take money from some and give it to others, without any meaningful constraints • Wickard v. Filburn (1942) let Congress use the interstate commerce clause to regulate even the most trivial activities—neither interstate nor commerce • Kelo v. City of New London (2005) declared that the government can seize private property and transfer it to another private owner
Levy and Mellor untangle complex Court opinions to explain how The Dirty Dozen harmed ordinary Americans. They argue for a Supreme Court that will enforce what the Constitution actually says about civil liberties, property rights, racial preferences, gun ownership, and many other controversial issues.
“Cato Institute senior fellow Levy and lawyer Mellor, in this excellent examination of twelve far-reaching Supreme Court cases and their consequences, force readers to question the direction in which the judiciary has led our country over the past century—and possibly their own attitudes toward the federal government. The authors deftly navigate the complicated proceedings without slipping into lawyer-speak, while unapologetically leaning on their libertarian sentiments to color their commentary and analysis. Though the writers defend well their claim that the dozen cases under discussion—with a number of “dishonorable mentions” and an appendix each for Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore—have expanded the federal government and eroded civil liberties, one can’t help but feel a creeping sense of arrogance when Levy and Mellor assert repeatedly that they know how the Constitution’s authors would view the document were they alive today. Still, the authors’ canny investigation into the Supreme Court should call into doubt some of the staid political viewpoints readers may have taken too long for granted.” --Publisher’s Weekly(May)
