Reviews of The Most Activist Supreme Court in History
Annual Review of Political Science ("Five important books by young political scientists have recently been published on the political construction of judicial review. . . . Collectively, these studies announce a new paradigm.")
Choice ("If you read just one book on the history of the modern Supreme Court, this should probably be the one.")
FindLaw's Writ (". . . a sophisticated political/legal account of the Rehnquist Court. . . . A particularly enlightening part of Keck's account deals with the influential role of the "New Right" critique of liberalism. . . . In the end, Keck reaches a moderate, nuanced conclusion about the Rehnquist Court: In his view, . . . both legal principles and political concerns shaped judicial behavior.")
Law and Politics Book Review ("Keck’s book is . . . interesting and very readable. . . . Keck makes a compelling case for the Rehnquist Court’s very high level of judicial activism.")
New York Law Journal ("[A] welcome and extremely timely book. . . . If one is looking to understand the relationship between constitutional decision-making and the political and social forces which may influence that process, especially in the immediate aftermath of the 2004 presidential election and with the looming prospect of vacancies on the Court, Professor Keck's book more than amply fills the bill.")
Perspectives on Politics (". . . as clear a statement of the Rehnquist Court's jurisprudence as I have seen. It captures the essentials of the divisions and the tensions that underlie this court's decisions and the differences among its members.")
Trial ("Keck makes a persuasive case for what he calls the 'activism' of the Rehnquist Court. . . . Overall, Keck has written an excellent history of constitutional law in the last two-thirds of the 20th century and the first years of the new millennium.")
Washington Monthly ("You can argue the merits and demerits of originalism until you are blue in the face, but on the question of whether originalism somehow transforms conservative activism into something else, Keck is very persuasive: The doctrine does not have a privileged claim on interpreting the Constitution, and when the Court invalidates a congressional statute it is in activist mode—even if the Justices are certain that the Framers themselves (whether through the Federalist Papers or by means of Vulcan mindmeld) are commanding them to throw Congress' work on the compost pile.")