E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
In my previous post, I had wondered whether (as Mark Graber suggested) “What Judge Wilkinson calls cosmic constitutional theory is the near inevitable consequence of political and constitutional change.” In my post, I had suggested (as hypothesis, not conviction) that such theory might be the inevitable consequence of the exercise by high courts of robust judicial review powers. But, if that is the case, then why – so far as I knew – were we getting very little cosmic theory from abroad, where high courts have been exercising judicial review powers under written constitutions now for over sixty years.
As it turns out, there is a relevant article in the new London Review of Books (23 February 2012) by Stephen Sedley focusing on a lecture entitled “Judicial and Political Decision-Making – The Uncertain Boundary”delivered this fall at Lincoln’s Inn by the Jonathan Sumption, QC, the newly confirmed appointee to the UK Supreme Court. In this lecture, the soon-to-be Justice Sumption indulges in some U.S.- like cosmic theorizing about the supposed opposition between judges following law vs. judges doing politics. Again, in an idiom that American constitutional theorists will find familiar, Sumption expresses concern for the future of self-government under activist, policymaking courts, when judges substitute their own policy preferences for those of the people’s elected representatives. Sumption references the grand constitutional theory debates taking place in the United States, duly noting the positions of the American originalists, and their opponents.
Sedley, a former judge, takes issue with Sumption’s argument at many points. But, on the question I had posed here about the prevalence and purchase of American-style cosmic constitutional theory abroad, Sedley (who at one point describes judging as “our unreflective and atheoretical profession”) seems truly taken aback by the sudden appearance of grand constitutional theory on his home turf.