Justices of the United States Supreme Court have prided themselves, especially in this age of textualism and originalism, on their fidelity to a-prudential decision-making. According to this view, what makes a judge good is his ability to interpret legal text free from any moral influence not intrinsic to the text or its author. This understanding is peculiar, given how virtue—and especially prudence—has been held since Aristotle’s day to be essential to the judicial office. But as this article shows, the Supreme Court is a prudential institution, although how it exercises prudence is often beneath the surface.
Damien M. Schiff (Wed,) studied this question.