By "judicial exclusivism," I mean the cast of mind revealed in a number of recent decisions (Boerne, Garrett) that only the Supreme Court is authorized to proffer constitutional interpretations. This is not "judicial supremacy" per se, because "js" could be the conclusion of a genuine "dialogue" between Court and Congress, say, in which the Court would say, after respectful consideration of Congress's view, "we beg to disagree and in our system we get the last word." But there is no respectful consideration of congressional views in recent decisions, only contempt for the very idea that non-judges would have the chutzpah to engage in constitutional interpretation. The best analysis of the phenomenon is Robert Post and Reva Seigel's article on Hibbs (written prior to the decision, obviously) in the Yale Law Journal. Hibbs is a quite fine decision, but it doesn't begin to make up for the travesty of Garrett in which the Court simply dismisses Congress's view that discrimination against the handicapped is of sufficient magnitude to warrant protection under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
sandy
sandy
