Justice Breyer's Democratic Pragmatism

@article{Sunstein2006JusticeBD,
  title={Justice Breyer's Democratic Pragmatism},
  author={Cass Robert Sunstein},
  journal={Yale Law Journal},
  year={2006},
  volume={115},
  pages={1719}
}
There have been many efforts to reconcile judicial review with democratic self-government. Some such efforts attempt to justify judicial review if and to the extent that it promotes self-rule. "Active Liberty," by Justice Stephen Breyer, is in this tradition; but it is also marked by a heavy pragmatic orientation, emphasizing as it does the need for close attention to purposes and to the importance of consequences to legal interpretation. Its distinctiveness lies in its effort to forge close… 
Justice Breyer's Constitutional Jurisprudence: Active Liberty and Pragmatism
ABSTRACT This analysis of Associate Justice Stephen Breyer's jurisprudence proceeds from his first book devoted to this subject, Active Liberty, a term he derives from Benjamin Constant and that
If People Would Be Outraged by Their Rulings, Should Judges Care?
At first glance, it is puzzling to suggest that courts should care whether the public would be outraged by their decisions; judicial anticipation of public outrage and its effects seems incompatible
Undue Process: Congressional Referral and Judicial Resistance in the Schiavo Controversy
The congressional response to the Schiavo controversy was both extraordinary and feeble. Without touching substantive law, Congress essentially offered Schiavo's parents a referral to a federal court
Use of Informal Justice Mechanisms in Criminal Justice System: Critical Observation of Principles, Theories and Prospects
This article purports to facilitate a discussion on the relevance of informal justice mechanism as an apt component of modern criminal justice system. Based on the observation that the formal
Due process traditionalism.
TLDR
The most plausible defense of due process traditionalism operates on rule-consequentialist grounds, with the suggestion that even if traditions are not great, they are often good, and judges do best if they defer to traditions rather than attempting to specify the content of "liberty" on their own.
Misfearing: A Reply
Human beings are prone to "misfearing": Sometimes they are fearful in the absence of significant danger, and sometimes they neglect serious risks. Misfearing is a product of bounded rationality, and
Embracing Chance: Post-Modern Meditations on Punishment
Since the modern era, the discourse of punishment has cycled through three sets of questions. The first, born of the Enlightenment itself, asked: On what ground does the sovereign have the right to
What Standing Is Good For
This Article provides a novel explanation of the function of standing doctrine in public law. Standing restrictions bar suits challenging governmental conduct that harms many people in an similar
The Judiciary and Economic Development
No degree of substantive law improvement can bring the rule of law to a country without effective enforcement, and a sound judiciary is the key to enforcement. Judicial independence and the strength
Do Judges Make Regulatory Policy?: An Empirical Investigation of Chevron
In the last quarter-century, the Supreme Court has legitimated agency authority to interpret regulatory legislation, above all in Chevron U.S.A., Inc v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc, the
...
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 160 REFERENCES
The Judiciary Is a They, Not an It: Two Fallacies of Interpretive Theory
In the theory of constitutional and statutory interpretation, dynamic arguments point to the beneficial effects on legislative behavior that will result if "judges" or "courts" adopt a particular
'You Are Entering a Gay- and Lesbian-Free Zone': On the Radical Dissents of Justice Scalia and Other (Post-) Queers
The most renowned substantive criminal law decision of the October 2002 Term, Lawrence v. Texas, will go down in history as a critical turning point in criminal law debates over the proper scope of
Undue Process: Congressional Referral and Judicial Resistance in the Schiavo Controversy
The congressional response to the Schiavo controversy was both extraordinary and feeble. Without touching substantive law, Congress essentially offered Schiavo's parents a referral to a federal court
Transitional Justice as Ordinary Justice
Theorists of transitional justice study the transition measures used, or eschewed, by new democracies that succeed communist or authoritarian regimes - measures including trials, purges, lustration,
Executive Exposure: Government Secrecy, Constitutional Law, and Platforms for Judicial Elaboration
American law never reached a satisfying conclusion about public access to information on government operations. Recent events are prompting reconsideration. As we assess our current system, three
Partisan Fairness and Redistricting Politics
Courts and scholars have operated on the implicit assumption that the Supreme Court's "one person, one vote" jurisprudence put redistricting politics on a fixed, ten-year cycle. Recent redistricting
Is the Party Over? The Court and the Political Process
This article identifies and analyzes five features of political parties that make them among the most complex and dynamic of any political institution and therefore among the most difficult for the
Minimalism at War
When national security conflicts with individual liberty, reviewing courts might adopt one of three general orientations: National Security Maximalism, Liberty Maximalism, and minimalism. National
Endorsement Retires: From Religious Symbols to Anti‐Sorting Principles
As last Term's Ten Commandments cases illustrated, the Supreme Court sometimes polices government use of religious symbols. This is partly attributable to the preferences of Justice O'Connor; she
Impeachment and Presidential Immunity from Judicial Process
The Lewinsky affair played out under ground rules shaped in the Watergate affair, an earlier episode involving misconduct by a President. A predicate of the impeachment of President Clinton was the
...
...