The most glamorous and even glorious moments in a legal system come when a high court recognizes an abstract principle involving, for example, human liberty or equality.
Indeed, Americans, and not a few non-Americans, have been greatly stirred--and divided--by the opinions of the Supreme Court, especially in the area of race relations, where the Court has tried to revolutionize American society. But these stirring decisions are aberrations, says Cass R. Sunstein, and perhaps thankfully so.
In Legal Reasoning and Political Conflict , Sunstein, one of America's best known commentators on our legal system, offers a bold, new thesis about how the law works in America, arguing that the courts best enable people to live together, despite their diversity, by resolving particular cases without taking sides in broader, more abstract conflicts. Sunstein offers a close analysis of the way the law mediates disputes in a diverse society, examining how the law works in practical terms, and showing that, to arrive at workable, practical solutions, judges must by necessity avoid broad, abstract reasoning.
This book is intended for readers interested in legal matters, legal academics, and those interested in legal philosophy and political philosophy.
.jpg?1680780797)