The Future of Precedent
In the conclusion Gerhardt reviews the basic arguments made throughout the book about the role of precedent in constitutional law, as well as the ramifications of the Roberts Court's handling of precedent in its first two years. He suggests that the Roberts Court has been entirely predictable in avoiding direct overruling of precedents, weakening precedents which the majority does not like, and grounding its opinions largely (but not wholly) in precedent. Gerhardt reiterates the case for his comprehensive framework for explaining better than other current theories (or statistical studies) the multiple functions of constitutional law. One strength he identifies in his framework is the importance it places on candor as a means for justices and other constitutional actors to clarify the significance of precedent, as contrasted with judicial minimalism, which liberates justices from having to explain the reasons for (or implications of) their decisions.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.