Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Concentration of power (1)
- Constitutional law & theory (1)
- Disagreement (1)
- Dworkin (1)
- Enactment intentions (1)
-
- Epistemic (1)
- Epistemic Peer (1)
- Equal protection (1)
- Friends (1)
- Hart (1)
- Individual liberties (1)
- Interpretation (1)
- Judges (1)
- Living constitutionalism (1)
- Methodology (1)
- Non-partisan (1)
- Nonoriginalism (1)
- Peer (1)
- Peer Disagreement (1)
- Popular (1)
- Positivism (1)
- Precedent (1)
- Principles (1)
- Rules (1)
- Scalia (1)
- Separation of powers (1)
- Sovereign (1)
- Unwritten (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Our Principled Constitution, Mitchell N. Berman
Our Principled Constitution, Mitchell N. Berman
All Faculty Scholarship
Suppose that one of us contends, and the other denies, that transgender persons have constitutional rights to be treated in accord with their gender identity. It appears that we are disagreeing about “what the law is.” And, most probably, we disagree about what the law is on this matter because we disagree about what generally makes it the case that our constitutional law is this rather than that.
Constitutional theory should provide guidance. It should endeavor to explain what gives our constitutional rules the contents that they have, or what makes true constitutional propositions true. Call any such account a …
Arguing With Friends, William Baude, Ryan D. Doerfler
Arguing With Friends, William Baude, Ryan D. Doerfler
All Faculty Scholarship
It is a fact of life that judges sometimes disagree about the best outcome in appealed cases. The question is what they should make of this. The two purest possibilities are to shut out all other views, or else to let them all in, leading one to concede ambiguity and uncertainty in most if not all contested cases.
Drawing on the philosophical concepts of “peer disagreement” and “epistemic peerhood,” we argue that there is a better way. Judges ought to give significant weight to the views of others, but only when those others share the judge’s basic methodology or interpretive …