Thanks to NetGalley and the publisher for this ARC!

The title caught my eye and the book didn’t disappoint, the court poses a distressing problem today and it’s helpful to have a scholar think through how we can possibly fix it.

The once-revered US Supreme Court is now continually criticized for basing decisions on partisanship rather than a faithful interpretation of the law. The author holds that overconfidence, not partisanship, is the core issue.

In this cogent and readable analysis, the author argues persuasively that when it comes to difficult constitutional questions, using a principle of least harm, rather than an ideological approach, is a more workable solution. Legal arguments aren't always the best way to address societal ills.

By seeking to mitigate harm, the justices would consider the other options litigants have to redress their complaints if the court rules against them. Instead of pretending that there's one clear solution to these problems, they'd acknowledge that these problems are hard, and Supreme Court justices are sometimes fallible. By taking this humbler, more compassionate approach, the justices could avoid the crisis of the eroding public trust in the Court.

As a reader, this was the exact book I needed right now. It's given me hope that we can find a way out of this cycle where we vilify everyone who disagrees with us. It's a way forward, a way to build a healthier, happier, more productive society.

Thanks, NetGalley, for the ARC I received. This is my honest and voluntary review.