The Judge as Political Theorist examines opinions by constitutional
courts in liberal democracies to better understand the logic and nature
of constitutional review. David Robertson argues that the constitutional
judge's role is nothing like that of the legislator or chief executive,
or even the ordinary judge. Rather, constitutional judges spell out to
society the implications--on the ground--of the moral and practical
commitments embodied in the nation's constitution. Constitutional
review, in other words, is a form of applied political theory.
Robertson takes an in-depth look at constitutional decision making in
Germany, France, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Canada, and South
Africa, with comparisons throughout to the United States, where
constitutional review originated. He also tackles perhaps the most
vexing problem in constitutional law today--how and when to limit the
rights of citizens in order to govern. As traditional institutions of
moral authority have lost power, constitutional judges have stepped into
the breach, radically altering traditional understandings of what courts
can and should do. Robertson demonstrates how constitutions are more
than mere founding documents laying down the law of the land, but
increasingly have become statements of the values and principles a
society seeks to embody. Constitutional judges, in turn, see it as their
mission to transform those values into political practice and push for
state and society to live up to their ideals.
