Judicial Philosophies Are Way Overrated

In this episode, I chat with Harvard Law’s Prof. Mark Tushnet, exploring his new book, “Who Am I to Judge? Judicial Craft versus Constitutional Theory.” Tushnet critiques the Supreme Court’s originalism and questions the narrow experience of justices. A must-listen to rethink judicial norms and hear Tushnet’s engaging perspectives on ideal court nominations and even the question of favorite books!

Highlights

• The genesis of a legal career: from political science to law school.
• Critique of judicial review’s evolution since the 1970s.
• Democrats rely on courts against the Trump administration.
• Background of the book “Who Am I to Judge?”
• Insight on Supreme Court composition change over generations.
• Judges’ uniformity influencing mediocre decisions.
• Originalism in academic vs judicial contexts.
• Evaluating Supreme Court nominees on broader life experiences.
• Predictions for Trump’s potential future nominees.

The Jabot podcast is an offshoot of the Above the Law brand focused on the challenges women, people of color, LGBTQIA, and other diverse populations face in the legal industry. Our name comes from none other than the Notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the jabot (decorative collar) she wore when delivering dissents from the bench. It’s a reminder that even when we aren’t winning, we’re still a powerful force to be reckoned with.

Happy listening!

Kathryn Rubino is a Senior Editor at Above the Law, host of The Jabot podcast, and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. AtL tipsters are the best, so please connect with her. Feel free to email her with any tips, questions, or comments and follow her on Twitter @Kathryn1 or Mastodon @Kathryn1@mastodon.social.

The post Judicial Philosophies Are Way Overrated appeared first on Above the Law.