Over the past century, countries around the globe have empowered constitutional courts to safeguard the rule of law. But when can courts effectively perform this vital task? Drawing upon a series of survey experiments fielded in the United States, Germany, Hungary, and Poland, this book demonstrates that judicial independence is critical for judicial efficacy. Independent courts can empower citizens to punish executives who flout the bounds of constitutional rule; weak courts are unable to generate public costs for transgressing the law. Although judicial efficacy is neither universal nor automatic, courts – so long as they are viewed by the public as independent – can provide an effective check on executives and promote the rule of law.
Maybe closer to 3.5 stars, which is high for me for an academic book. The rounding up comes because of the impressive data collection showcased and used to great effect here. But it's also about COVID and the public's reaction to the unprecedented steps taken by executives in the name of public health and the apex court's reaction to it, and so it's also important, and deserves some sort of trigger warning. What an awful time that was, when they were conducting this research. But reading in this awful time also makes it sort of fascinating. How much of what they find for executive overreach in the name of public health applies also to executive overreach in the name of preventing illegal immigration? Does it matter if one comes from a place that feels protective of the public while the other comes from a place that feels protective of white privilege?? And the lengths to which this administration is going to both interdict those here illegally and to shake up the community in the process is just beyond all comprehension. If the rule of law is still relevant when this administration is over, who will be the savior??