Abstract
This essay offers a qualified defense of decisional -- the idea that courts should minimize the burdens of decision and the likelihood and seriousness of errors by offering the narrowest rationale necessary to defend an outcome. It distinguishes between shallowness and narrowness and explains the values served by each. It applies the analysis of minimalism not only to Dred Scott, Brown v. Bd., and Roe v. Wade, but also to the central cases of the past term (above all Romer v. Evans, which it defends as salutary minimalism) and future disputes over the right to die, same-sex marriage, and affirmative action.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
