Settled versus right : a theory of precedent

In this timely book, Randy J. Kozel develops a theory of precedent designed to enhance the stability and impersonality of constitutional law. Kozel contends that the prevailing approach to precedent in American law is undermined by principled disagreements among judges over the proper means and ends of constitutional interpretation. The structure and composition of the doctrine all but guarantee that conclusions about the durability of precedent will track individual views about whether decisions are right or wrong, and whether mistakes are harmful or benign. This is a serious challenge, but it also reveals a path toward maintaining legal continuity even as judges come and go. Kozel's account of precedent should be read by anyone interested in the nature of the judicial role and the trajectory of constitutional law.

Framing the study of precedent -- The stakes of deference -- Strength of constraint -- Scope of applicability -- Precedent and pluralism -- Precedential strength in doctrinal perspective -- Precedential strength in structural perspective -- Compromise, common ground, and precedential scope -- Implications and transitions.