Daryl Levinson

I think the Supreme Court is super important and I agree with you descriptively that a lot of the faith in constitutional law is real law and the corresponding willingness to get on to deciding the substantive issues that the court is going to decide in a better way comes from a system that is confident in the centrality of judicial decision-making and a kind of judicial supremacy.

I think the Supreme Court is super important and I agree with you descriptively that a lot of the faith in constitutional law is real law and the corresponding willingness to get on to deciding the substantive issues that the court is going to decide in a better way comes from a system that is confident in the centrality of judicial decision-making and a kind of judicial supremacy.

And international law does not have the equivalent. You know, there's no general world court that everyone agrees can decide the most important issues of international law and have states follow what the court says. And if there were, I think international law would be a lot more like constitutional law in how it's perceived and what law professors in the field do.

And international law does not have the equivalent. You know, there's no general world court that everyone agrees can decide the most important issues of international law and have states follow what the court says. And if there were, I think international law would be a lot more like constitutional law in how it's perceived and what law professors in the field do.

The other way around, popular constitutionalists describe a system of constitutional law in which the courts are decentered, less powerful, and where multiple actors and groups can interpret the constitution for themselves and somehow fight with each other over what the constitution is going to mean. And it's not clear how these legal disagreements get resolved.

The other way around, popular constitutionalists describe a system of constitutional law in which the courts are decentered, less powerful, and where multiple actors and groups can interpret the constitution for themselves and somehow fight with each other over what the constitution is going to mean. And it's not clear how these legal disagreements get resolved.

And the whole system all of a sudden looks a lot more like international law. So I think the court is really important. And the question is, how much can the court accomplish? One question is, how is the court accomplishing what it's accomplishing now? Or what is it accomplishing now? Parchment barriers were not going to constrain the powerful.

And the whole system all of a sudden looks a lot more like international law. So I think the court is really important. And the question is, how much can the court accomplish? One question is, how is the court accomplishing what it's accomplishing now? Or what is it accomplishing now? Parchment barriers were not going to constrain the powerful.

I don't think gavel barriers are going to constrain the powerful much better. I mean, you can bonk someone in the head with a gavel, but... If you have the 101st Airborne, it's not going to stop a president who says, I don't care what the Supreme Court says. I'm just going to do what's best for the country. And of course, we have had presidents that have said things like that from time to time.

I don't think gavel barriers are going to constrain the powerful much better. I mean, you can bonk someone in the head with a gavel, but... If you have the 101st Airborne, it's not going to stop a president who says, I don't care what the Supreme Court says. I'm just going to do what's best for the country. And of course, we have had presidents that have said things like that from time to time.

And it's kind of interesting to ask why presidents don't say that kind of thing more often, not to mention other groups that have resisted or mobilized against the court. And Here, again, I think there are the same kinds of explanations or theories about why the court has whatever power it has. There's a realist view of the Supreme Court, which is that the court has power itself.

And it's kind of interesting to ask why presidents don't say that kind of thing more often, not to mention other groups that have resisted or mobilized against the court. And Here, again, I think there are the same kinds of explanations or theories about why the court has whatever power it has. There's a realist view of the Supreme Court, which is that the court has power itself.

In our system of constitutional law, because the court is very careful to exercise that power only in ways that the politically powerful are willing to accept. So the court is essentially following majoritarian opinion or the court is very careful not to contradict.

In our system of constitutional law, because the court is very careful to exercise that power only in ways that the politically powerful are willing to accept. So the court is essentially following majoritarian opinion or the court is very careful not to contradict.

The strong preferences of the political branches, as it did during the New Deal and got in trouble and then learned its lesson, it's not going to do it again.

The strong preferences of the political branches, as it did during the New Deal and got in trouble and then learned its lesson, it's not going to do it again.

And so what the Supreme Court does is help powerful constituencies or the national political branches effectuate their agendas, maybe brings outlier states into line, maybe brings other groups into line, consolidates coalitions politically, but doesn't actually stand in the way of the powerful constituencies. in a very meaningful sense. That's the sort of realist view.

And so what the Supreme Court does is help powerful constituencies or the national political branches effectuate their agendas, maybe brings outlier states into line, maybe brings other groups into line, consolidates coalitions politically, but doesn't actually stand in the way of the powerful constituencies. in a very meaningful sense. That's the sort of realist view.

And then there are rationalist game theoretical kinds of views about how it's good for lots of groups if the court protects rights or sets limits on what politics can do, because sometimes we're winners and sometimes we're losers. And in the long run, it's better

And then there are rationalist game theoretical kinds of views about how it's good for lots of groups if the court protects rights or sets limits on what politics can do, because sometimes we're winners and sometimes we're losers. And in the long run, it's better