The U.S. Constitution contains a series of rights and liberties operating as restrictions on the powers of government, and courts have the final authority to determine what these often nebulous restrictions require. But judges are deeply divided over the correct methodology to follow in making these determinations: different judges employ different judicial philosophies—and may consequently reach different constitutional results. Understanding these methodological disagreements is therefore crucial for anyone wishing to attain a full understanding of our constitutional law, or to appraise the legitimacy of our institutional arrangements—especially that of judicial review. In The Silent Prologue, Ofer Raban provides an engaging examination of the interpretive theories judges use to reach their verdicts. Using key case histories as illustration, Raban illuminates the rationales and assumptions behind competing judicial philosophies that have far-reaching implications for the rights of American citizens.

Distributed for George Mason University Press