In the Senate Confirmation Hearings on his nomination, Chief Justice John Roberts memorably stated that he believed that the proper role of judges is "to call balls and strikes," an analogy repeated by Justice Kavanaugh in his hearings. This book makes clear, however, that the justices have often changed the strike zone. They have overruled past precedent, significantly expanded or limited prior rulings, created new constitutional rights such as that protecting same-sex marriage, while striking down constitutional rights recognized for many years, including a woman's right to choose an abortion. The book carefully reviews some 200 cases, highlighting what the justices themselves have said in explaining their rulings. It also notes how the dissenting opinions are particularly valuable in explaining the dissenters' often accurate contentions that some decisions significantly changed prior precedent. The book begins with cases decided in the 19th and 20th centuries to give the background of the constitutional issues discussed, but the overall focus is on 21st-century decisions since they have accelerated changes in constitutional law.
This book examines how the Supreme Court has repeatedly reshaped constitutional law, often in ways that depart from the image of neutral umpiring invoked by Chief Justice John Roberts-and later echoed by Justice Kavanaugh-when they likened judging to merely "calling balls and strikes."
Edward F. Mannino demonstrates how, in practice, the Court has frequently redefined the strike zone: overturning precedent, expanding or narrowing prior rulings, creating new constitutional rights such as the right to same sex marriage, and eliminating long recognized rights, including a woman's right to choose an abortion. Drawing on roughly 200 cases, the book highlights the justices' own explanations for their decisions and underscores how dissenting opinions often identify where and how the majority has meaningfully shifted or abandoned earlier precedent. Although it begins with key 19th- and 20th century cases to set the stage, its primary focus is on 21st century decisions, where changes in constitutional doctrine have accelerated. Ultimately, Mannino shows that understanding the modern Supreme Court requires recognizing not just how the justices call the plays, but how they continually redefine the rules of the game.
