Judicial Minimalism - The Minimalist Viewpoint

The Minimalist Viewpoint

Minimalists offer very small, case-specific interpretations of Constitutional Law as an alternative to what they see as the excesses of extremists on both sides. They believe that a stable Constitutional Law is in everybody's interest, and place great importance on the concept of precedent and stare decisis. They argue that only very small interpretations away from precedent, narrowly-applied, and based on the general direction of society constitute true judicial restraint rather than any originalist or strict constructionist viewpoint (in opposition to conservatives), while still allowing for a Living Constitution (albeit one with a much slower adaptation than many liberals would like). Depending on the minimalist's particular preferences, a minimalist on the court would be likely to either very slowly bolster or chip away at abortion precedents rather than proclaim a lasting ban or legalization on abortion via Constitutional rulings.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is often hailed by minimalists as their ideal Justice.

In a concurring opinion in the 2011 Supreme Court case NASA v. Nelson, Justice Antonin Scalia derided minimalism as a "never-say-never disposition does damage for several reasons." Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, defended the Court's minimalist approach in choosing to "decide the case before us and leave broader issues for another day."