About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline



99 S. Cal. L. Rev. Postscript 1 (2025)

handle is hein.journals/pstscrpt99 and id is 1 raw text is: 










  TOWARDS DEFENSIBLE JUDGE-MADE

              DEMOCRATIC PROCESS


                             JACOB  EISLER*


     What  is the function of judicial review? By the stated lights of Article
III (cases and controversies),1 to individual judges resolving cases, and
to litigants asserting they have suffered an injustice, courts must fairly
resolve particular disputes. Yet thanks to the wide-ranging consequences of
common   law decision-making and the hunger of ambitious law professors to
advance  novel and  transformative scholarly claims, doctrine tends to be
evaluated  by  its purported systemic  effects. In election law-which
explicitly bears on  terms  of collective participation-this contrast is
especially sharp. Yet contemporary election law scholarship so thoroughly
emphasizes  systemic accounts that it neglects the foundation of legitimate
collective self-governance: the participation and consent of individuals in
politics.
     The Law   of Freedom  aspires to return attention to this foundation.
Professor Yunsieg Kim's wonderfully  insightful review draws out this point
while clearing the path for the challenging but urgent analysis that future
jurisprudence and scholarship must undertake. Reconciling judge-made law
and  constituent autonomy  is an  endeavor of  intimidating analytic and
normative  complexity. An  operationally useful framework2 will require
courts to engage  with  how  personal autonomy   is translated into valid
collective action through representation, all while diligently respecting the
norms  of rule of law that ameliorate the counterpopular dilemma.


     *  Professor of Law, Florida State University College of Law, jeisler@law.fsu.edu. Deborah
Kloeckner provided excellent and detailed research assistance for this piece.
    1. U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2.
    2.  Yunsieg P. Kim, Liberty Before Party: The Courts as Transpartisan Defenders of Freedom,
98 S. CAL. L. REv. POSTSCRIPT 74, 92 (2025).


1