In this episode, Evan Bernick, Executive Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution and Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown, discusses his article \"Constitutional Hedging.\" Bernick begins by explaining that \"constitutional hedging\" is when judges consider the merits and demerits of multiple theories of constitutional interpretation when deciding how to answer a question, rather than pre-committing to one preferred theory. He describes how judges might engage in constitutional hedging, and observes that it may be a more systematic version of how many judges already answer constitutional questions. He also reflects on how constitutional hedging squares with different normative theories of law, as well as legal realism. Bernick is on Twitter at @evanbernick.
This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye.
","author_name":"CC0/Public Domain"}