"The book addresses questions about the roles of law and politics and the challenge of legitimacy in constitutional adjudication in the Supreme Court. With all sophisticated observers recognizing that the Justices' political outlooks influence their decision making, many political scientists, some of the public, and a few prominent judges have become Cynical Realists. In their view Justices vote based on their policy preferences, and legal reasoning is mere window-dressing. This book rejects Cynical Realism, but without denying many Realist insights. It explains the limits of language and history in resolving contentious constitutional issues. To rescue the notion that the Constitution is law that binds the Justices, the book provides an original account of what law is and means in the Supreme Court. It also offers a theory of legitimacy in Supreme Court adjudication. Given the nature of law in the Supreme Court, we need to accept and learn to respect reasonable disagreement about many constitutional issues. If so, the legitimacy question becomes: how would the Justices need to decide cases so that even those who disagree with the outcomes ought to respect the Justices' processes of decision? The book gives a fresh and counterintuitive answer to that vital question. Adapting a methodology made famous by John Rawls, it argues that the Justices should strive to achieve a "reflective equilibrium" between their interpretive principles, framed to identify the Constitution's enduring meaning, and their judgments about appropriate outcomes in particular cases, evaluated as prescriptions for the nation to live by in the future. The book blends the perspectives of law, philosophy, and political science to answer theoretical and practical questions of pressing national importance"--
Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright -- Dedication -- Contents -- Preface -- Introduction -- 1.
If public trust is now in decline, one part of the solution is to promote better understandings of how the judiciary actually works: how judges adhere to their oaths and how they try to avoid considerations of politics and popularity.
More recently, however, Bartels and Johnston (2020) argue that these items encapsulate a variety of concepts that include procedural perceptions, trust, and institutional restructuring. Their preferred measurement strategy focuses on ...
Thomas Rutherforth, Institutes ofNatural Law (Baltimore, MD: William & Ioseph Neal, 1832), 405, cited in Berger, “Activist Indifference,” 1o ... james Wilson, “Ofthe Study of the Law in the United States," The Works oflames Wilson, vol.
Jennifer Burbridge and Matthew Kull also provided able assistance, and Jane Barry provided helpful copyediting suggestions. Two anonymous reviewers offered discerning feedback, and we greatly appreciate the careful attention they gave ...
Their reactions to the case are varied and surprising, filled with sparkling argument and spirited debate. This is a must-read book for thoughtful Americans everywhere. /DIV/DIV
Examining the judicial argumentation of the United States Supreme Court and of the French Cour de cassation, the book first reorders the traditional comparative understanding of the difference between French civil law and American common ...
This book will equip scholars and students with the knowledge required to understand the importance of the independence of the judiciary in the transition to democracy.
2013. Introduction to The Health Care Case: The Supreme Court Decision and Its Implications, edited by Nathaniel Persily, Gillian E. Metzgar, and Trevor W. Morrison, 1–8. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Petty, Richard E., and John T.
The Death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Rise of Amy Coney Barrett, and Twelve Months That Transformed the Supreme Court Linda Greenhouse. confidence in my integrity than to ... I'm glad President Trump chose you , ” Graham told her .