Judges urged to embrace symmetry in constitutional interpretation amid polarization

The publication centers around the concepts presented in a new book discussing constitutional interpretation in the context of growing political polarization in the United States. The book highlights the different interpretations of the Constitution by conservatives, who often prioritize protecting religion and limiting federal oversight, and progressives, who seek to enhance social justice through broader federal powers. As national politics have become increasingly divided, both major political parties have aimed to influence the courts to achieve their objectives, complicating the role of judges as neutral arbiters of justice. The author argues for judges to prefer symmetric interpretations, which would treat the Constitution as a unifying document rather than a battleground for political disagreements. This perspective emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity and shared understanding of constitutional principles to prevent further political conflict and division within the judiciary and society at large.