In this era of polarized politics, three stories about judges have emerged. When describing their own work, judges often say that they are neutral legal umpires. When describing opposing judges, partisan political actors regularly denounce them for undermining democratic values and imposing their own preferences. Scholars have long told a third story, in which judges are political actors who spend more time conforming to rather than challenging the democratic will. Drawing on a sweeping survey of litigation regarding abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, and gun rights during the Clinton, Bush, and Obama eras, Keck argues that each of these stories captures part of the significance of courts in polarized times, but that each, standing alone, is more misleading than helpful. In polarized America, advocates on both the left and the right engage in litigation more-or-less constantly to achieve their ends. But, Keck shows, neither side has consistently won, or consistently lost. Instead, judges have responded to this unending litigation, at different times and in different ways, as umpires, as activist tyrants, and as followers of whoever won the last election. For example, federal courts are indeed polarized on partisan lines, but across all four issues, this polarization is less extreme on the courts than it is in Congress. As for the undemocratic judge story, here too Keck s findings are hardly black and white. While some decisions can be characterized as thwarting the popular will, there are just as many in which the judges and the public seem to be pushing in the same direction. Ultimately Keck concludes that the time to fear courts is not when they start protecting rights, but when they start protecting only or mostly those rights favored by Republicans (or by Democrats). Keck s rigorous analysis of these judicial controversies is sure to engender interest both inside and outside the academy and be hailed as a landmark study of judicial review."