{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0320326150262085, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008736167734420501, 'mean_word_length': 5.028070175438597, '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}}
The Constitution of Judicial Power . By Sotirios A. Barber. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993. 279p. $25.95.

In this work, Sotirios Barber sets forth a theory of judicial activism, in the tradition of the Warren Court, which he defends against "skillful enemies" on the right and "incompetent friends" on the left. Justices should make up their own minds as to what the Constitution means, giving no weight to the opinions of the framers, prior courts, legislators, current or past majorities. This practice, Barber maintains, is not the innovation of the Warren Court or the deviation of the Old Court, but in fact the "classical" theory of judicial review. In supporting this point, he closely analyzes the Federalist Papers, not exactly to reconstruct the arguments as Madison and Hamilton understood them, but to construct an interpretation that best combines plausibility with morality. In this way, Barber places the role of the courts in the context of The Federalist's aspiration to reconcile democracy with justice, not "justice" but real justice. To simplify, and thus to do a real injustice to a complex, imaginative, and well structured argument, the Constitution assumes a gap between justice and what the people believe about justice, between the people's aspirations for simple justice and their immediate and often self-centered interests, and it "institutionalizes a concern" for narrowing these gaps by creating structures of government that can be responsible to the peoples' aspirations exactly because they are not responsive to their immediate interests (pp. 23 and 31). Active use of judicial review in the name of simple justice is the peak institutionalization of this concern.