Part I, How Scholars Change Their Minds: 2005 and 2020

 

 

BEFORE

 

Saikrishna Prakash, Regulating Presidential Powers, 91(1) Cornell L. Rev. 215 (2005) (reviewing Harold J. Krent, Presidential Powers (2005)):

 

Given that [Professor Krent] spends much time discussing the merits and demerits of judicial review of executive action, and given that Presidents (such as Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln [in Ex parte Merryman]) have ignored judgments in the past, he ought to have more fully discussed the consequences of judicial review-namely, what if anything, the President must do after the issuance of a judicial opinion and judgment.

 

Id. at 223 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added).

 

AFTER

 

Saikrishna Bangalore Prakash, The Living Presidency: An Originalist Argument against Its Ever-Expanding Powers (2020):

 

The executive complies with such [judicial] judgments because for two centuries presidents have consistently supposed that judges decide who wins and loses a case, with the executive obliged to enforce and honor those judgments. The handful of exceptions, such as Lincoln’s refusal to honor Chief Justice Roger Taney’s constitutional opinion in Ex parte Merryman (Lincoln ignored Taney’s conclusion that the executive was illegally holding John Merryman), force us to take notice.

 

Id. at 110 (emphases added) (parenthetical in the block quotation is Prakash’s).

Seth Barrett Tillman, Part I, How Scholars Change Their Minds: 2005 and 2020, New Reform Club (Aug. 8, 2021, 3:15 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2021/08/how-scholars-change-their-minds-2005.html>;