![Free Thoughts artwork](https://is4-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Podcasts113/v4/0f/ba/2f/0fba2f32-b8e2-4dec-dc4b-7e74721df4a0/mza_8655310479931138173.png/100x100bb.jpg)
The Problem of Judicial Abdication
Free Thoughts
English - August 04, 2014 04:02 - 52 minutes - 23.9 MB - ★★★★★ - 272 ratingsPolitics News History libertarianism libertarian Homepage Download Apple Podcasts Google Podcasts Overcast Castro Pocket Casts RSS feed
Clark Neily joins us this week for a discussion on judicial engagement. Neily contrasts judges’ findings in cases with stringent standards of review—which he characterizes as a genuine quest for the truth from a truly neutral adjudicator, decided on the basis of evidence—with what he calls judicial abdication: the tendency of judges to default to a rational basis review of speculative justification by the government. They also discuss the right to earn a living, judicial activism, and the defining essence of the Constitution.
Show Notes and Further Reading
Clark Neily, Terms of Engagement: How Our Courts Should Enforce the Constitution’s Promise of Limited Government (book)
Timothy Sandefur, The Right to Earn a Living: Economic Freedom and the Law (book)
Clark Neily is on Twitter at @ConLawWarrior.
See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.