| Abstract |
"The Supreme Court, once the most respected institution in American government, is now routinely criticized for rendering decisions based on the individual justices' partisan leanings rather than on a faithful reading of the law. For legal scholar Aaron Tang, however, partisanship is not the Court's root problem. Overconfidence is. Conservative and liberal justices alike have adopted a tone of uncompromising certainty in their ability to solve society's problems with just the right lawyerly arguments. The result is a Court that lurches stridently from one case to the next, delegitimizing opposing views and undermining public confidence in itself. To restore the Court's legitimacy, Tang proposes a different approach to hard cases: a "least harm principle" under which the Court rules against the side with the greatest ability to avoid the harm it would suffer in defeat. Examining a surprising number of popular opinions where the Court has applied this approach, Tang shows how the least harm principle can provide a promising and legally grounded framework for the difficult cases that divide our nation"-- Dust jacket. |
