Abstract
This Article is an interpretation of Chief Justice Warren Burger's jurisprudence. One problem with much of the writing on particular justices, including writing on Chief Justice Burger, is that scholars tend to focus on majority opinions in landmark cases, drawing conclusions about the justice to whom an opinion is attributed. Thus, most of the writing about the former Chief Justice, and there is a great deal of it, concentrates on the landmark cases of the Burger Court. Because a majority opinion must to some extent incorporate the views of the justices who have joined the opinion, a particular majority opinion may not be especially useful in identifying the personal views of the author. For a historian of the Court, or of constitutional law, majority opinions may be sufficient to identify the changing trends in constitutional theory or jurisprudence. However, for the intellectual historian interested in examining and understanding the jurisprudence of a particular justice, the emphasis on opinions written, at least in part, to incorporate views of others may obscure that justice's individual philosophy and biases.
Recommended Citation
Zane, Phillip Craig
(1995)
"An Interpretation of the Jurisprudence
of Chief Justice Warren Burger,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1995:
No.
4, Article 1.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1995/iss4/1