Judicial statesmanship, the jurisprudence of individualism, and Tocqueville's common law spirit

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Tocqueville's account of judging unites two concerns separated in recent debates over constitutional interpretation, use of discretion to serve the rule of law and respect for tradition. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey the majority upholding Roe is properly concerned with rule of law, while Justice Scalia properly criticizes departures from text and tradition. However, both evince a skepticism which undermines these concerns. This raises differences between American constitutionalism prior to Holmes and the rival strains of legal realism now dominant. Tocqueville's judicial statesmanship would perpetuate the Constitution by preserving the principles of its letter and spirit. Holmesean judges lack the classic common law basis of this jurisprudence and should not exercise discretion unguided by our founding principles. The jurisprudence of individualism yielded by activist Holmesean skepticism is inadequately opposed by Holmesean skeptical restraint and better addressed by a common law constitutionalism.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)465-495
Number of pages31
JournalReview of Politics
Volume60
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 1998
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

constitutionalism
common law
individualism
constitutional state
jurisprudence
realism
family planning
respect
constitution
justice
interpretation
lack

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Political Science and International Relations

Cite this

Judicial statesmanship, the jurisprudence of individualism, and Tocqueville's common law spirit. / Carrese, Paul.

In: Review of Politics, Vol. 60, No. 3, 01.12.1998, p. 465-495.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{3b01537d5fd94d0b9916415e1f5a7fcd,
title = "Judicial statesmanship, the jurisprudence of individualism, and Tocqueville's common law spirit",
abstract = "Tocqueville's account of judging unites two concerns separated in recent debates over constitutional interpretation, use of discretion to serve the rule of law and respect for tradition. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey the majority upholding Roe is properly concerned with rule of law, while Justice Scalia properly criticizes departures from text and tradition. However, both evince a skepticism which undermines these concerns. This raises differences between American constitutionalism prior to Holmes and the rival strains of legal realism now dominant. Tocqueville's judicial statesmanship would perpetuate the Constitution by preserving the principles of its letter and spirit. Holmesean judges lack the classic common law basis of this jurisprudence and should not exercise discretion unguided by our founding principles. The jurisprudence of individualism yielded by activist Holmesean skepticism is inadequately opposed by Holmesean skeptical restraint and better addressed by a common law constitutionalism.",
author = "Paul Carrese",
year = "1998",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/S0034670500027431",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "60",
pages = "465--495",
journal = "Review of Politics",
issn = "0034-6705",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Judicial statesmanship, the jurisprudence of individualism, and Tocqueville's common law spirit

AU - Carrese, Paul

PY - 1998/12/1

Y1 - 1998/12/1

N2 - Tocqueville's account of judging unites two concerns separated in recent debates over constitutional interpretation, use of discretion to serve the rule of law and respect for tradition. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey the majority upholding Roe is properly concerned with rule of law, while Justice Scalia properly criticizes departures from text and tradition. However, both evince a skepticism which undermines these concerns. This raises differences between American constitutionalism prior to Holmes and the rival strains of legal realism now dominant. Tocqueville's judicial statesmanship would perpetuate the Constitution by preserving the principles of its letter and spirit. Holmesean judges lack the classic common law basis of this jurisprudence and should not exercise discretion unguided by our founding principles. The jurisprudence of individualism yielded by activist Holmesean skepticism is inadequately opposed by Holmesean skeptical restraint and better addressed by a common law constitutionalism.

AB - Tocqueville's account of judging unites two concerns separated in recent debates over constitutional interpretation, use of discretion to serve the rule of law and respect for tradition. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey the majority upholding Roe is properly concerned with rule of law, while Justice Scalia properly criticizes departures from text and tradition. However, both evince a skepticism which undermines these concerns. This raises differences between American constitutionalism prior to Holmes and the rival strains of legal realism now dominant. Tocqueville's judicial statesmanship would perpetuate the Constitution by preserving the principles of its letter and spirit. Holmesean judges lack the classic common law basis of this jurisprudence and should not exercise discretion unguided by our founding principles. The jurisprudence of individualism yielded by activist Holmesean skepticism is inadequately opposed by Holmesean skeptical restraint and better addressed by a common law constitutionalism.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34248111026&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34248111026&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S0034670500027431

DO - 10.1017/S0034670500027431

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:34248111026

VL - 60

SP - 465

EP - 495

JO - Review of Politics

JF - Review of Politics

SN - 0034-6705

IS - 3

ER -