Do judges have an obligation to enforce the law?: Moral responsibility and judicial-reasoning [Book Review]
Law and Philosophy 29 (2):159-187 (2010)
|Abstract||Judicial obligation to enforce the law is typically regarded as both unproblematic and important: unproblematic because there is little reason to doubt that judges have a general, if prima facie, obligation to enforce law, and important because the obligation gives judges significant reason to limit their concern in adjudication to applying the law. I challenge both of these assumptions and argue that norms of political legitimacy, which may be extra-legal, are irretrievably at the basis of responsible judicial reasoning.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Torben Spaak (2009). Karl Olivecrona on Judicial Law-Making. Ratio Juris 22 (4):483-498.
Steven J. Burton (1992). Judging in Good Faith. Cambridge University Press.
Barry Hoffmaster (1982). Understanding Judicial Discretion. Law and Philosophy 1 (1):21 - 55.
Jeffrey Brand-Ballard (2010). Limits of Legality: The Ethics of Lawless Judging. Oxford University Press.
Bebhinn Donnelly-Lazarov (2011). The Figuring of Morality in Adjudication: Not so Special? Ratio Juris 24 (3):284-303.
Raymond Wacks (2009). Injustice in Robes: Iniquity and Judicial Accountability. Ratio Juris 22 (1):128-149.
Anthony Reeves (2011). Judicial Practical Reason: Judges in Morally Imperfect Legal Orders. Law and Philosophy 30 (3):319-352.
Added to index2009-10-03
Total downloads76 ( #13,066 of 722,744 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,247 of 722,744 )
How can I increase my downloads?