The nature of American constitutional politics was forever changed during the Progressive Era. In the nineteenth century, the process of constitutional interpretation was a vague and decentralized enterprise balanced between the courts and the public square. The meaning of the Constitution was decided as much at the polls or on the battlefield as in court opinions. This balance started to give way at the turn of the century as federal courts began asserting greater authority in the definition of constitutional bounds. “Bench over Ballot” illustrates how the assertion of judicial supremacy in the Progressive Era precipitated a fight that upended the traditional dynamic of American politics. Populist-progressives championed the people's ultimate right to correct judicial decisions while traditionalist-conservatives stood for judicial supremacy to ensure a “government of laws.” The outcome of the political battle in 1912 was a consensus between Wilsonian progressives and Taftian conservatives in favor of judicial supremacy that banished the notion of popular supremacy and transformed the nature of constitutional politics from a popular, decentralized process to a vicious battle over the personal composition of the bench—a phenomenon deeply familiar over a century later.

中文翻译：

---

替补席：司法至上的斗争和新的宪政政治，1910-1916

在进步时代，美国宪法政治的性质永远改变了。在 19 世纪，宪法解释的过程是一个在法院和公共广场之间平衡的模糊和分散的事业。宪法的意义在民意调查或战场上与法庭意见一样多。随着联邦法院开始在宪法界限的定义中主张更大的权威，这种平衡在世纪之交开始让位。“替补席”说明了进步时代司法至上的主张如何引发一场颠覆美国政治传统动态的斗争。民粹进步主义者拥护人民 纠正司法裁决的最终权利，而传统保守派则主张司法至上，以确保“法治政府”。1912 年政治斗争的结果是威尔逊进步派和塔夫提式保守派达成共识，支持司法至上，摒弃了民众至上的概念，并将宪法政治的性质从民众的、分散的过程转变为关于个人构成的恶性斗争替补席——一个多世纪后人们非常熟悉的现象。