Progressive Visions of Jurisprudence: A Debate

Conservatives have been winning the battle of ideas over judicial philosophy. How should progressive interpret the constitution, and what arguments should we make? Join the Brookings Institution and Democracy for a debate on liberal jurisprudence.

By Jack Meserve

Tagged Constitutionprogressivism

For years, progressives have struggled to outline and rally around a coherent vision of the Constitution and judiciary. During this time, the conservative ideologies of “originalism” and “judicial restraint” have seeped further and further into the national bloodstream. What arguments should progressives make to the public, and how should a liberal jurisprudence interpret the Constitution?

In the most recent issue of Democracy, Geoffrey Stone, Bill Marshall, Doug Kendall, and Jim Ryan debate these questions. While Stone and Marshall argue that our interpretation of the Constitution and its principles must change over time, Kendall and Ryan believe that progressives can and should base their arguments on the text itself.

Stone and Kendall will continue their debate at an event hosted by the Brookings Institution. The moderators are E.J. Dionne, senior fellow at Brookings and and Democracy‘s editorial chair, as well as Benjamin Wittes, also a senior fellow at Brookings.

Progressive Visions of Jurisprudence: A Debate
Monday, July 18, 2011
2:00 PM – 3:30 PM
Falk Auditorium
The Brookings Institution
1775 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC

RSVP for the event here.

Read more about Constitutionprogressivism

Jack Meserve is the associate editor of Democracy: A Journal of Ideas.

Also by this author

A Health Policy with Teeth

Click to

View Comments

blog comments powered by Disqus