Reading the Constitution
Why I Chose Pragmatism, not Textualism
Impossibile aggiungere al carrello
Puoi avere soltanto 50 titoli nel carrello per il checkout.
Riprova più tardi
Riprova più tardi
Rimozione dalla Lista desideri non riuscita.
Riprova più tardi
Non è stato possibile aggiungere il titolo alla Libreria
Per favore riprova
Non è stato possibile seguire il Podcast
Per favore riprova
Esecuzione del comando Non seguire più non riuscita
L'offerta termina il 15 luglio 2026 alle 23:59. Approfittane!
I primi 3 mesi gratis.
Ascolto illimitato della nostra selezione in continua crescita di migliaia di audiolibri, podcast e Audible Original.
Accesso a vendite e offerte esclusive.
Dopo 3 mesi, 9,99 €/mese.
Reading the Constitution
Letto da:
Stephen Breyer
Acquista ora a 16,80 €
-
Letto da:
-
Stephen Breyer
-
Di:
-
Stephen Breyer
In a provocative and brilliant analysis, retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer deconstructs the textualist philosophy of the current Supreme Court’s supermajority and makes the case for a more pragmatic approach of the Constitution.
“You will not read a more important legal work this election year.” —Bob Woodward, Washington Post reporter and author of fifteen #1 New York Times bestselling books
“A dissent for the ages.” —The Washington Post
“Breyer’s candor about the state of the court is refreshing and much needed.” —The Boston Globe
The relatively new judicial philosophy of textualism dominates the Supreme Court. Textualists claim that the right way to interpret the Constitution and statutes is to read the text carefully and examine the language as it was understood at the time the documents were written.
This, however, is not Justice Breyer’s philosophy nor has it been the traditional way to interpret the Constitution since the time of Chief Justice John Marshall. Justice Breyer recalls Marshall’s exhortation that the Constitution must be a workable set of principles to be interpreted by subsequent generations.
Most important in interpreting law, says Breyer, is to understand the statutes as well as the consequences of deciding a case one way or another. He illustrates these principles by examining some of the most important Supreme Court cases in the nation’s history, among them the Dobbs and Bruen decisions from 2022 that he argues were wrongly decided and have led to harmful results.
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
Ancora nessuna recensione