Author Archives: F. E. Guerra-Pujol
Concluding Post (Review of Kozel): Bayesian Stare Decisis?
Rather than end our extended review of Randy Kozel’s excellent new book on precedent (“Settled Versus Right”) on a negative note, we shall conclude our review by stating our points of agreement with Kozel and then offering an alternative solution … Continue reading
Steps at the University of Balamand in Lebanon
FYI: We will conclude our review of Randy Kozel’s book “Settled Versus Right” on 15 May. (In other words, we’re taking Monday off.)
Review of Kozel (Chs. 6-8): second-best stare decisis
In our previous post, we saw why the doctrine of stare decisis is such a feeble constraint in constitutional cases, since (as Kozel correctly claims) there is no universal metric for weighing the positive or negative effects of a precedent. … Continue reading
Review of Kozel (Chs. 3-5): The Problem with Precedent
Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of “Settled Versus Right” mount a powerful critique of precedent, or to be more precise, these chapters show why precedent is such a feeble constraint in practice, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s oft-repeated lip service … Continue reading
Review of Kozel (Ch. 2): Pros and Cons of Stare Decisis
Chapter 2 of “Settled Versus Right” weighs the pros and cons of stare decisis. Let’s jump in with the cons. Kozel sums up the main argument against stare decisis as follows (p. 50): “The job of judges is to interpret … Continue reading
Review of Kozel (Ch. 1): The Brandeis Problem
Chapter 1 of “Settled Versus Right” identifies three main aspects of stare decisis: the source of a given precedent (what court issued the decision in the previous case?); the strength and scope of the precedent (how much weight, if any, … Continue reading
Review of Kozel (Intro)
Editor’s note: this is the first of several blog posts reviewing Randy Kozel’s important new book (pictured below) Settled Versus Right: A Theory of Precedent, Cambridge University Press, 2017. In a previous blog post, (16 June 2016), we conjectured that … Continue reading
“Diverse Originalism” [?]
That is the title of this thought-provoking paper by Christina Mulligan, a professor at Brooklyn Law School. Some background: “orginalism” refers to a common sense method of interpreting the Constitution. Broadly speaking, constitutional originalists believe that the meanings of the … Continue reading
Review of Chopra’s review of Hanson & Simler
Out of intellectual curiosity, we have decided to read and review Paras Chopra’s excellent review of Robin Hanson and Kevin Simler’s new book Elephant in the Brain (pictured below the fold). Mr Chopra’s comprehensive review consists of a series of … Continue reading

