Courts hide behind "Judicial Restraint" to favour Big Government and its parasites.

A new book argues that right-leaning judges (you read that right) erode citizen protection from Big Government by invoking judicial restraint, which is  "a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional".    h/t Instapundit.

From reviews of Neily's "Terms of Engagement: How Our Courts Should Enforce the Constitution's Promise of Limited Government" at Amazon:

“Clark Neily’s elegant essay slays the idea that ‘judicial restraint’ is always a virtue. It often amounts to judicial abdication. Neily explains that judges must judge to defend the rights that government exists to secure.”
—George F. Will

“Through the use of compelling real-world cases and remarkably clear, accessible and accurate explanations of current law, Clark Neily exposes the legal charade by which, in the name of ‘restraint,’ judges have stacked the deck in favor of those who use laws and regulations to line their own pockets. Required reading for all who care about their liberties and the Constitution that is supposed to protect them.”
—Randy Barnett, Professor at Georgetown Law School


“Clark Neily weaves constitutional analysis with anecdotes in service of large principle. His basic principle is that a squishy policy of judicial deference disserves his clients, the public at large, and the critical role of judicial oversight in a democracy. He is right on all counts. A great read for lawyers and nonlawyers interested in the real-world consequences of judicial decision making.”
 —Richard Epstein, Professor at the New York University School of Law