ABSTRACT
Judicial statecraft, in constitutional adjudication, is to be measured by instrumentalist success in effectuating a socially desirable outcome, and by institutional success in preserving the balance of judicial and political roles in the constitutional system. Judicial pursuit of statecraft by political guesswork, whether for the good of the polity or the Court's own institutional interests, offers no more cogent or compelling premise for constitutional decision than the achievement of pragmatic social goals. The Supreme Court's citation of a number of published psychological studies as support for judicial findings that segregation inherently retarded the educational development of Negro children was widely hailed or anathematized as a breakdown for social science in the law. The dilemma of the realist tradition lies in confusing a theory of critical description with a theory of judicial action. Realism sees the norm as the product of the institution.
