Description
Book SynopsisCompared to the vast machinery surrounding Congress and the president, the Supreme Court is a tiny institution that can resolve only a small fraction of the constitutional issues that arise in any given year. Andrew Coan shows that this simple yet frequently ignored fact is essential to understanding how the Supreme Court makes constitutional law.
Trade ReviewIf you are tired of conventional debates about constitutional law, you will find Andrew Coan’s new book a delight. It is full of insight about the structures that produce constitutional law yet remain in the background of standard doctrinal and theoretical debates. Institutional facts matter in constitutional law. Coan’s book shows why they are so very important. -- Victoria Nourse, Georgetown University Law Center
Two centuries into our American constitutional experiment, rarely does a book force us both to rethink old issues and to confront important issues we had never even considered.
Rationing the Constitution is such a book—part theoretical, part empirical, all fantastic. -- David Fontana, George Washington University Law School
Andrew Coan’s focus is unconventional, and the result is erudite and creative. He turns the orb of constitutional law to reveal fresh and important insights. This book constitutes a major contribution to the comparative institutional analysis of constitutional law. -- Neil Komesar, University of Wisconsin Law School
Andrew Coan’s book is a clearly written and intellectually impressive effort to systematically work out the implications of the consequentialist approach to constitutional adjudication and interpretation by the Supreme Court. Agree or disagree, it will become one of the standard references in this debate. -- Adrian Vermeule, Harvard Law School
Through a detailed examination of the Court’s jurisprudential responses to its limited institutional capacity, Coan offers a roadmap for practitioners, academics, and activists to understand how the Court will respond to future constitutional issues. * Harvard Law Review *
