Modest judicial restraint
Law and Philosophy 18 (3):243 - 270 (1999)
| Abstract | The main argument of this paper is that there are reasons for judges not only to evaluate the substantive merit of legislation, but to advert to the fact that the place of elected legislatures in our scheme of government gives legislation a standing, an entitlement to consideration, that may go beyond judicial estimates of its intrinsic merit. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesPierre Noreau (2008). Applied Judicial Ethics. Wilson & Lafleur.
Barry Hoffmaster (1982). Understanding Judicial Discretion. Law and Philosophy 1 (1):21 - 55.
Autumn Fiester (2008). Justifying a Presumption of Restraint in Animal Biotechnology Research. American Journal of Bioethics 8 (6):36 – 44.
Joseph Grcic (2006). The Rule of Law and Presidential Pardon. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 20 (1):97-105.
Micah Lott (2006). Restraint on Reasons and Reasons for Restraint: A Problem for Rawls' Ideal of Public Reason. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (1):75–95.
M. T. (1999). Modest Judicial Restraint. Law and Philosophy 18 (3):243-270.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads4 ( #178,844 of 549,695 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,695 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
