Your current web browser is outdated. For best viewing experience, please consider upgrading to the latest version.

Donation - Other Level

Please use the quantity box to donate any amount you wish. Sign Up to Donate

Contact

Send a question or comment using the form below. This message may be routed through support staff.

Email Article

Password Reset Request

Register


Add a topic or expert to your feed.

Following

Follow Experts & Topics

Stay on top of our work by selecting topics and experts of interest.

Experts
Topics
Project
On The Ground

RSVP

event

Supreme Court At a Crossroads

Clark Neily Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Mark Pulliam Lawyer and Contributing Editor, Library of Law and Liberty; Contributor, City Journal
Thu, Feb 9, 2017 New York City

Thank you for your RSVP.

ERROR
Main Error Mesage Here
More detailed message would go here to provide context for the user and how to proceed
ERROR
Main Error Mesage Here
More detailed message would go here to provide context for the user and how to proceed

Manhattan Institute

search
Close Nav

Supreme Court At a Crossroads

SEE ALL EVENTS
event

Supreme Court At a Crossroads: Judicial Engagement VS. Judicial Restraint: What Should Conservatives Prefer?

Clark Neily Senior Attorney, Institute for Justice
Mark Pulliam Lawyer and Contributing Editor, Library of Law and Liberty; Contributor, City Journal
New York City 06:00pm—07:45pm
Thursday February 9
Thursday February 9 2017
PAST EVENT Thursday February 9 2017

On February 9, 2017, the Manhattan Institute hosted two experienced litigators—Clark Neily and Mark Pulliam—to explain and debate judicial engagement.

With a new Republican administration in Washington—and a GOP Senate majority—conservatives have the opportunity to reshape the Supreme Court for a generation. But what sorts of justices should conservatives want? The legal right today is broadly divided into two camps: Those who support a more engaged judiciary that vigorously enforces enumerated as well as unenumerated constitutional rights to overturn state and federal legislation and those who believe in a judiciary that takes a more limited view of the constitutional text.

To examine this divide, we have invited two experienced litigators who fall on each side of the debate. Clark Neily, as an attorney with the Institute for Justice, has made a career out of challenging the constitutionality of laws and regulations. In his book, Terms of Engagement: How Our Courts Should Enforce the Constitution’s Promise of Limited Government, Mr. Neily has called for "meaningful judicial engagement," arguing that "the structure of the Constitution rejects reflexive deference to the legislative branch." Contributing editor to the Library of Law and Liberty and longtime lawyer Mark Pulliam, in contrast, has derided judicial engagement as "faux originalism." According to Mr. Pulliam, the approach preferred by Mr. Neily and various libertarian academics would, at worst, "unmoor constitutional law from the text of the Constitution and empower unelected judges to be society’s Platonic Guardians."

Please join us for this important debate, moderated by the Manhattan Institute’s director of legal policy, James Copland, on the proper role of judges in America’s constitutional republic.

MEDIA CONTACT

212-599-7000

communications@manhattan-institute.org

TOPICS
Legal ReformOther
Saved!
Close