The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
“Interpose Your Friendly Hand”: Political Supports for the Exercise of Judicial Review by the United States Supreme Court
Open accessAbstract
The exercise of constitutional review by an independent and active judiciary is commonly regarded as against the interest of current government officials, who presumably prefer to exercise power without interference. In this article, I advance an “overcoming obstructions” account of why judicial review might be supported by existing power holders. When current elected officials are obstructed from fully implementing their own policy agenda, they may favor the active exercise of constitutional review by a sympathetic judiciary to overcome those obstructions and disrupt the status quo. This provides an explanation for why current officeholders might tolerate an activist judiciary. This dynamic is illustrated with case studies from American constitutional history addressing obstructions associated with federalism, entrenched interests, and fragmented and cross-pressured political coalitions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America
Schattschneider, E. E. (1960) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,262
Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms
McCubbins, M. D., & Schwartz, T. (1984) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.2307/2110792 · Cited by 2,936
Legislative leviathan: party government in the House
(1993) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.31-0579 · Cited by 2,313
The Politics of Blame Avoidance
Weaver, R. K. (1986) · Journal of Public Policy · doi:10.1017/s0143814x00004219 · Cited by 2,145
The logic of congressional action
(1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-4778 · Cited by 1,813
The Political Foundations of Democracy and the Rule of the Law
Weingast, B. R. (1997) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2952354 · Cited by 1,750
Information and Legislative Organization
Krehbiel, K. (1991) · University of Michigan Press eBooks · doi:10.3998/mpub.8850 · Cited by 1,718
The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in Postwar Europe
Moravcsik, A. (2000) · International Organization · doi:10.1162/002081800551163 · Cited by 1,430
Stimson, J. A., Mackuen, M. B., & Erikson, R. S. (1995) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2082973 · Cited by 1,316
The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social Change?
Scheppele, K. L., & Rosenberg, G. N. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2075854 · Cited by 1,009
Cited by
The Judicialization of Mega-Politics and the Rise of Political Courts
Hirschl, R. (2008) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053006.183906 · Cited by 437
Roe, M. J., & Siegel, J. I. (2011) · Journal of Comparative Economics · doi:10.1016/j.jce.2011.02.001 · Cited by 341
A Global Measure of Judicial Independence, 1948–2012
Linzer, D. A., & Staton, J. K. (2015) · Journal of Law and Courts · doi:10.1086/682150 · Cited by 308
Metadata
- Authors
- WHITTINGTON, K. E.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2005-10-31
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 583-596
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2160260097
- Cited by
- 285
- References
- 46
- FWCI
- 100.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: “Interpose Your Friendly Hand”: Political Supports for the Exercise of Judicial Review by the United States Supreme Court. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0003055405051890
- The paper
- WHITTINGTON, K. E. (2005). “Interpose Your Friendly Hand”: Political Supports for the Exercise of Judicial Review by the United States Supreme Court. American Political Science Review. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055405051890
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
