David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Rutgers Law Record 27 (1):1-17 (2003)
This Comment demonstrates that policy judgements are not masked by philosophical references, nor do philosophers play any crucial role in contentious judicial decisions. Neomi Rao’s study is flawed for many reasons: incomplete content analysis, poor assessment of data, and an inadequate definition of philosophy. She should be criticised for hypocritically praising Court philosopher references in some instances and not others, especially with regard to the Court’s early development. This Comment searched unsuccessfully for an instance where philosophers were cited just once in controversial cases regarding racial integration, capital punishment’s abolition and re-legality, and the 2000 Presidential election. Philosophers are peculiarly absent from major controversial cases. Rao claims the Court’s majority decisions avoided the “Philosophers’ Brief” because the philosophers’ argument was grounded in theory, not substantive legal argument surrounding issues of judicial precedent. This Comment challenges Rao’s use of “philosophy” as something entirely abstract and steeped in metaphysics. Philosophy is presented as a large umbrella covering diverse sub-fields, two of which are philosophy of law and political philosophy. These sub-fields are of great use to law. Thus, the Court has not illegitimately used philosophers to support personal policy preferences. Nor is the use of philosophy incommensurable with judicial decision-making.
|Keywords||philosophy Supreme Court abortion euthanasia Plato Rawls|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Kristin Lefebvre (2007). An Ethical Evaluation of the Supreme Court Decision Regarding ERISA Interpretation. Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):327-334.
Wade K. Wright, Facilitating Intergovernmental Dialogue: Federalism, Judicial Review and the Supreme Court of Canada.
William A. Edmundson (2007). Schauer on Precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court. Georgia State University Law Review 24 (2):403-13.
Charles T. Kotuby Jr, Private International Law Before the United States Supreme Court: Recent Terms in Review.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads23 ( #87,276 of 1,679,365 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #112,124 of 1,679,365 )
How can I increase my downloads?