The author’s search for a text which emphasized the underlying and continual concerns that the roles of judicial review and federalism present whenever the Court is asked to justify or reject majoritarian decisions led her to adopt Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, and Tushnet’s Constitutional Law. Having used it for at least five years, she remains convinced that it does an excellent job in a difficult field. The Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, and Tushnet casebook seems to have found a workable mix of past and present political and judicial landscape. For the most part, it utilizes a chronological approach in its separate treatment of key subject matter areas. While no casebook is without flaws, this one provides a mix of history, doctrine, and commentary that is superb.
Margaret G. Stewart, Notes on Notes, 21 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 979 (1998).