Settled versus right a theory of precedent

In this timely book, Randy J. Kozel develops a theory of precedent designed to enhance the stability and impersonality of constitutional law. Kozel contends that the prevailing approach to precedent in American law is undermined by principled disagreements among judges over the proper means and ends...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Kozel, Randy J.
Format: eBook
Language:English
Published: Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2017
Subjects:
Online Access:
Collection: Cambridge Books Online - Collection details see MPG.ReNa
LEADER 02019nmm a2200277 u 4500
001 EB001491598
003 EBX01000000000000000921187
005 00000000000000.0
007 cr|||||||||||||||||||||
008 170620 ||| eng
020 |a 9781316412237 
050 4 |a KF429 
100 1 |a Kozel, Randy J. 
245 0 0 |a Settled versus right  |b a theory of precedent  |c Randy J. Kozel 
260 |a Cambridge  |b Cambridge University Press  |c 2017 
300 |a x, 180 pages  |b digital 
505 0 |a Framing the study of precedent -- The stakes of deference -- Strength of constraint -- Scope of applicability -- Precedent and pluralism -- Precedential strength in doctrinal perspective -- Precedential strength in structural perspective -- Compromise, common ground, and precedential scope -- Implications and transitions 
610 1 4 |a United States / Supreme Court / Decision making 
653 |a Stare decisis / United States 
653 |a Constitutional law / United States 
041 0 7 |a eng  |2 ISO 639-2 
989 |b CBO  |a Cambridge Books Online 
028 5 0 |a 10.1017/9781316412237 
856 4 0 |u https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316412237  |x Verlag  |3 Volltext 
082 0 |a 347.73001 
520 |a In this timely book, Randy J. Kozel develops a theory of precedent designed to enhance the stability and impersonality of constitutional law. Kozel contends that the prevailing approach to precedent in American law is undermined by principled disagreements among judges over the proper means and ends of constitutional interpretation. The structure and composition of the doctrine all but guarantee that conclusions about the durability of precedent will track individual views about whether decisions are right or wrong, and whether mistakes are harmful or benign. This is a serious challenge, but it also reveals a path toward maintaining legal continuity even as judges come and go. Kozel's account of precedent should be read by anyone interested in the nature of the judicial role and the trajectory of constitutional law