Reading the Constitution
Why I Chose Pragmatism, not Textualism
Det gick inte att lägga till artiklar
Tyvärr kan vi inte lägga till artikeln eftersom din kundvagn redan är full.
Titeln kunde inte läggas till i kundvagnen.
Försök igen senare
Titeln kunde inte läggas till i Önskelistan.
Försök igen senare
„Ta bort från Önskelista“ misslyckades.
Försök igen senare
„Följ podcast“ misslyckades
„Sluta följa podcast“ misslyckades
Prova Audible Standard kostnadsfritt i 30 dagar
Därefter 6,99 €/mån. Kan sägas upp varje månad
Reading the Constitution
Berättare:
Stephen Breyer
Köp för 21,04 €
-
Berättare:
-
Stephen Breyer
-
Av:
-
Stephen Breyer
In a provocative and brilliant analysis, retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer deconstructs the textualist philosophy of the current Supreme Court’s supermajority and makes the case for a more pragmatic approach of the Constitution.
“You will not read a more important legal work this election year.” —Bob Woodward, Washington Post reporter and author of fifteen #1 New York Times bestselling books
“A dissent for the ages.” —The Washington Post
“Breyer’s candor about the state of the court is refreshing and much needed.” —The Boston Globe
The relatively new judicial philosophy of textualism dominates the Supreme Court. Textualists claim that the right way to interpret the Constitution and statutes is to read the text carefully and examine the language as it was understood at the time the documents were written.
This, however, is not Justice Breyer’s philosophy nor has it been the traditional way to interpret the Constitution since the time of Chief Justice John Marshall. Justice Breyer recalls Marshall’s exhortation that the Constitution must be a workable set of principles to be interpreted by subsequent generations.
Most important in interpreting law, says Breyer, is to understand the statutes as well as the consequences of deciding a case one way or another. He illustrates these principles by examining some of the most important Supreme Court cases in the nation’s history, among them the Dobbs and Bruen decisions from 2022 that he argues were wrongly decided and have led to harmful results.
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
Inga recensioner ännu