"Judicial engagement is essential to maintaining our liberties"

In the latest issue of The Independent Review, James W. Ely Jr., author of the superb The Guardian of Every Other Right: A Constitutional History of Property Rights, takes a look at Robert Levy and William Mellor's excellent recent book The Dirty Dozen, which offers a libertarian take on 12 Supreme Court decisions (plus "dishonorable mentions) that "radically expanded government and destroyed freedom." As Ely notes:

Unlike some conservatives, the authors have no patience with theories of judicial restraint and deference to legislative judgments. Such an approach, in their view, simply paves the way for increased governmental power and diminished individual freedom. Levy and Mellor remind us that Kelo, widely derided by conservatives and property-rights advocates, was an example of judicial restraint. Their central complaint is that the judiciary has abdicated its responsibility to enforce constitutional provisions intended to maximize individual freedom by establishing only a limited federal government. Their argument is simply put: "Judicial engagement is essential to maintaining our liberties" (p. 224). The authors correctly point out that neither liberals nor conservatives have been consistent with respect to the role of the judiciary.

Read the full review here. Read my case for libertarian judicial activism here.