{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03953610964681075, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009488666315234581, 'mean_word_length': 4.804281345565749, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
How Courts Govern America

Civil War, "Judicial Subjectivism" (1900 to 1937), "The Modern Era," the Warren Court period, and the Burger Court. Mott makes no attempt to provide a history of constitutional interpretation. Thus, one does not expect to find the breadth of Kelly and Harbison's text The American Constitution (Norton 1976). However, Mott's "focusing on major areas of concern within defined periods" (p. vii) fails to provide sufficient depth for an appreciation of the Court's historical role. Too often, we are asked to draw conclusions based on a discussion of one or two leading Supreme Court decisions. In discussing the activism and liberalism of the Warren Court, for example, it is hard to disagree with Mott when he asserts that "an accurate portrayal" (p. 179) of the period is possible by examining four major areas: free speech, race discrimination, voting equality, and criminal justice. Yet it is unlikely that the historical significance of the period can be appreciated by basing the analysis on one landmark decision in each area. The Warren Court's liberal approach to the dissemination of sexual expression is not demonstrated by focusing solely on the procensorship decision in RothAlberts. As a result, Mott provides no basis for his conclusion that "It]he net result has been a strengthening of the case for free speech" (p. 184). Other important free speech problems, e.g. prayer, libel, sit-ins, etc. are simply not discussed. In the area of voting equality, an analysis based on Baker v. Carr offers little insight into the Court's liberal activistic policy when no mention is made of later decisions and the one man-one vote standard. In short, there is simply an insufficient amount of constitutional law in this volume, and too many important problems (e.g., affirmative action, the civil rights movement, the incorporation debate) are not discussed at all.