Judicial Populism

45 Pages Posted: 6 Nov 2020 Last revised: 3 Mar 2021

See all articles by Anya Bernstein

Anya Bernstein

University at Buffalo Law School

Glen Staszewski

Michigan State University College of Law

Date Written: September 16, 2020

Abstract

Populism has taken center stage in discussions of contemporary politics. This Article details for the first time a judicial populism that resonates with populism’s tropes, mirrors its traits, and enables its practices. Like political populism, judicial populism insists that there are clear, correct answers to complex, debatable problems, treating reasonable disagreement as illegitimate. It disparages the institutions that mediate divergent interests in a republican democracy, claiming special access to the law’s clear objective meaning. And it imagines a pure, unified people locked in battle with a subversive elite.

While commentators have recognized political populism as fundamentally undemocratic, judicial populism has not just escaped recognition but become entrenched in legal thought. We show how textualism, originalism, and unitary executive theory share political populism’s anti-pluralist, anti-institutionalist, Manichean tendencies. We elucidate judicial populism’s rhetorical tropes and stock stories, explaining how their frequently syllogistic format suggests indisputable truth even when their premises are faulty and conclusions unsupported. And we detail how judicial populism claims the mantle of the passive virtue tradition while undermining its aims.

Judicial populism’s rhetorical success has put proponents of other approaches on the defensive. Revealing its inner workings, we argue for the opposite result. Judicial populist rhetoric contradicts and undermines the commitments of republican democracy—a presumed pluralism of views and interests mediated through institutions that allow for ongoing negotiation about both means and ends among people who both compete and collaborate. Rather than ceding judicial populism a moral high ground, we should pursue a legal theory fit for a republican democracy. We end by outlining what such democratic judging entails.

Keywords: populism, republican democracy, interpretive theory, textualism, originalism, unitary executive theory, pluralism, democratic judging

JEL Classification: K-10

Suggested Citation

Bernstein, Anya and Staszewski, Glen, Judicial Populism (September 16, 2020). University at Buffalo School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2020-005, 109 Minnesota Law Review ___ (Forthcoming 2021), Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3694132 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3694132

Anya Bernstein

University at Buffalo Law School ( email )

School of Law
624 O'Brian Hall
Buffalo, NY 14260-1100
United States

Glen Staszewski (Contact Author)

Michigan State University College of Law ( email )

420 Law College Building
East Lansing, MI 48824-1300
United States
517-432-6888 (Phone)
517-432-6879 (Fax)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
274
Abstract Views
934
rank
139,595
PlumX Metrics