Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 9 - Noninterpretive Decisions

  • Donald L. Drakeman, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
  • Book:
    The Hollow Core of Constitutional Theory
    Published online:
    26 January 2021
    Print publication:
    08 April 2021, pp 178-196

  • Summary

    A new argument about interpretation appeared in the twentieth century: the idea that Supreme Court justices should make their own judgments about the best national policy, and then write their opinions in language that gives the impression that the decision represents an interpretation of the Constitution. This chapter argues that decision science says that the Supreme Court justices are not well-suited for making good policy decisions, and that, if they do so, they should be transparent in their reasoning. For thousands of years, the public and its elected representatives have looked to the courts to provide answers to difficult and important issues involving interpretation, something for which judges are well-trained and well-placed to do. When that traditional process metamorphizes into pure political policymaking, the justices need to defend it as such, and not put at risk the Court’s essential role as the authoritative interpreter of legal texts.