From the Publisher
Chemerinsky . . . offers a concise, point-by-point refutation of the theory [of originalism]. He argues that it cannot deliver what it promises—and if it could, no one would want what it is selling.”—David Cole, New York Review of Books Listed by Wall Street Journal in “12 Books to Read: The Best Reviews of September” “Lucid [and] convincing . . . [with] sensible arguments opposing what seems like the wave of the future.”—Kirkus Reviews “[A] timely and devastating refutation of originalism. . . . Chemerinsky is eminently qualified to mount this critique. . . . [It is] the definitive obituary of originalism.”—Stephen Rohde, Los Angeles Review of Books “Chemerinsky has written a powerful, respectful but devastating critique of the political practice known as originalism. This rich and careful book provides essential context for understanding the confusions and self-deceptions of that project.”—Aziz Z. Huq, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law, University of Chicago “Worse Than Nothing addresses an exceptionally timely and significant issue. Chemerinsky provides a definitive account of the rise and pitfalls of originalism that is accessible to a broad audience of lawyers and nonlawyers alike.”—Leah Litman, professor of law, University of Michigan Law School “Worse Than Nothing is a devastating, concise, and beautifully written critique of originalism. It is a must read for anyone interested in the current debates about originalism and constitutional interpretation.”—Eric J. Segall, author of Originalism as Faith “Originalism mistakenly seeks to slavishly tie interpretation of our living Constitution to a single point in time. Nowhere is this mistake more forcefully and clearly explained than in this excellent new book by Erwin Chemerinsky.”—Martin H. Redish, author of Judicial Independence and the American Constitution “Clear, concise and devastating. . . . A must-read for anyone interested in the Constitution and its contemporary meaning.”—David Cole, national legal director of the ACLU
Leah Litman
“Worse Than Nothing addresses an exceptionally timely and significant issue. Chemerinsky provides a definitive account of the rise and pitfalls of originalism that is accessible to a broad audience of lawyers and nonlawyers alike.”—Leah Litman, Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School
Aziz Huq
“Chemerinsky has written a powerful, respectful but devastating critique of the political practice known as originalism. This rich and careful book provides essential context for understanding the confusions and self-deceptions of that project.”—Aziz Z. Huq, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law, University of Chicago
Martin Redish
“Originalism mistakenly seeks to slavishly tie interpretation of our living Constitution to a single point in time. Nowhere is this mistake more forcefully and clearly explained than in this excellent new book by Erwin Chemerinsky.”—Martin H. Redish, author of Judicial Independence and the American Constitution
Eric Segall
“Worse Than Nothing is a devastating, concise, and beautifully written critique of originalism. It is a must read for anyone interested in the current debates about originalism and constitutional interpretation.”—Eric J. Segall, author of Originalism as Faith
Kirkus Reviews
2022-08-12
A legal expert examines “a dangerous approach to constitutional law that would jeopardize many basic rights and advances in equality.”
In his latest, Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley Law School, delivers a lucid, convincing attack on a prominent legal philosophy, though he admits that it is unlikely to change its adherents’ minds. The author writes that the Constitution is an impressive document written by brilliant men who considered it a framework that defined the responsibilities and limitations of government. For nearly two centuries, judges interpreted it broadly to deal with issues in an ever changing world. Matters changed after World War II when the Supreme Court issued a series of decisions that infuriated conservatives, certain they were based on the judges’ personal (and liberal) values. At only four pages, the Constitution seems limited, but scholars maintained that intense study would reveal the Founders’ true intentions. Proponents of originalism postulated that those intentions, plus their beliefs at the time they wrote the document (and of those who wrote amendments), must serve as the sole determining factors for a legal decision. Chemerinsky maintains that this makes no sense. Madison and Hamilton violently disagreed on major constitutional issues of executive power and of Congress’ spending power. Who was right? The 14th Amendment, which guarantees “equal protection,” has long been taken literally, but the intent of the framers in 1868 was to protect freed slaves. Therefore, originalists insist, it does not forbid discrimination against women, racial minorities, the disabled, or gay citizens. They maintain that there is no constitutional right to privacy because the Constitution doesn’t mention it. In a disheartening look toward the future, Chemerinsky warns that the Supreme Court, now solidly originalist, will radically transform our nation in the decades to come. Roe v. Wade has been overturned already, and the author also explores rulings that restrict environmental protection and immigration and expand the right to carry guns.
Sensible arguments opposing what seems like the wave of the future.
