The conservative legal movement has shown remarkable success at defining the terms of the debate over jurisprudence, while the various visions of liberal theories of law that confront conservative orthodoxy have struggled to gain currency in the political sphere. Conservative legal theorists have coalesced around a relatively compact and politically effective set of ideas while their liberal critics have offered a diverse series of responses. In the face of conservative victories, can liberals forge a coherent response? Or will differences among liberals get in the way? What events might shake up the current state of the debate?
On December 1, the Brookings Institution hosted a conference on the asymmetry between liberal and conservative visions of jurisprudence. Participants discussed how modern conservative orthodoxy arose, the competing visions of liberal jurisprudence, and the prospects for political backlash against conservative orthodoxy and for a resurgence of liberal jurisprudence.
Following each panel, the participants took questions from the audience.
Lloyd M. Bensten Chair in Law and Professor of History
Former Brookings Expert
Professor - The George Washington University School of Law
President and CEO - National Constitution Center
Contributing Editor - The Atlantic
William L. Matheson & Robert M. Morgenthau Distinguished Professor of Law
Gerald Ratner Distinguished Service Professor of Law
To subscribe or manage your subscriptions to our top event topic lists, please visit our event topics page.
[Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan would face a presidential run-off] with his aura of invincibility and traditional mastery over Turkish politics severely weakened [if he fails to secure outright victory on June 24 and the AKP loses its parliamentary majority].