Clauses Not Cases is a Response to Robert Post and Reva Siegel, Questioning Justice: Law and Politics in Judicial Confirmation Hearings, Yale L.J. (The Pocket Part), Jan. 2006.
In Questioning Justice, Robert Post and Reva Siegel make three claims. First, that the Constitution authorizes the Senate to rest its judgement, in part, on the constitutional philosophy of nominees to the Supreme Court; second, that this practice is justified on grounds of democratic legitimacy; and third, that it is best implemented by asking nominees “to explain the grounds on which they would have voted in past decisions of the Supreme Court.” The author agrees entirely with the first and most important of these propositions. He disagrees, however, that either the Constitution as a whole, or this particular practice is best justified on grounds of democratic legitimacy, or that their proposal is the best way to assess the philosophy of nominees.
115 Yale L.J. (The Pocket Part) 65-69 (2006)
Scholarly Commons Citation
Barnett, Randy E., "Clauses Not Cases" (2006). Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works. 843.