Richard H. Fallon

TL;DR: The notion of legal and sociological legitimacy of judicial power has been studied extensively in the literature as discussed by the authors, with a focus on the notion of social legitimacy of a judge's office.

TL;DR: Fallon as discussed by the authors argued that the best case for judicial review in politically and morally healthy societies does not rest (as has often been asserted) on the idea that courts are more likely than legislatures to make correct decisions about how to define vague rights of the kind commonly included in bills of rights.

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that the Supreme Court performs two functions: the first is to identify the Constitution's idealized "meaning". The second is to develop tests and doctrines to realize that meaning in practice.

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that the two leading notions of autonomy, positive and negative liberty, are overly simple and flawed, and argue that autonomy-based First Amendment theory should recognize two alternative conceptions: descriptive autonomy, which considers the impact of external causal factors on individual liberty, and ascriptive autonomy which represents each person's sovereignty over her moral choices.

TL;DR: The authors argued that the strict scrutiny test is best understood as mandating a proportionality inquiry and that when challenged regulations would at best reduce risks or incidences of harm, rather than extirpate them completely, courts applying strict scrutiny must ask whether the benefits justify the costs in light of regulatory alternatives that would trench less deeply on constitutional rights but also be less effective in promoting their goals.