How Constitutional Law Casebooks Perpetuate the Myth of Judicial Supremacy (original) (raw)

The paper argues that constitutional law casebooks perpetuate the myth of judicial supremacy by primarily focusing on Supreme Court decisions while neglecting the influence of elected branches on constitutional values. It highlights the discrepancies between academic discourse and casebook content, emphasizing the need for a more comprehensive approach that includes political and legislative contexts. The author critiques existing casebooks for their limited engagement with non-judicial materials and advocates for innovation in legal education to better reflect the complexities of constitutional interpretation.