Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Law Becomes Us: Rediscovering Judgment

Hunter, McGlynn and Rackley (eds.) (2010): Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice, Hart, ISBN: 9781849460538

  • Book Review
  • Published:
Feminist Legal Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. See http://www.law.uq.edu.au/australian-feminist-judgments-project.

  2. It is worth recalling Karl Llewellyn’s motivational words, which can now be read with both affection for the Realist movement and—in the present context—irony, given the gendered language of his otherwise radical (for the times) claims: ‘Ferment is abroad in the law. The sphere of interest widens: men become interested again in the life that swirls around things legal. Before rules, were facts: in the beginning was not a Word, but a Doing. Behind decisions stand judges; judges are men; as men they have human backgrounds.’ (And so it goes on, including ‘[a]nd those involved are folk of modest ideals’, but for reasons of space I do not continue).

  3. See, in particular, Sheffield City Council v E (judgment by Nicole Barker and Marie Fox 2010); Re G (Children) (judgment by Alison Diduck 2010); Evans v Amicus Healthcare (judgment by Sonia Harris-Short 2010); R (Begum) v Governors of Denbeigh High School (judgment by Maleiha Malik 2010); Re A (Conjoined Twins) (judgment by Geraldine Hastings 2010). See also comments by the editors in the Introduction, 12–13.

  4. Cornell’s critique is, among other things, of the ways in which law is often conflated with (or dressed up as) justice: the justice of law is institutionally conserved through endless doctrinal repetitions and erasure of the question of the justification of law. Although it might be fruitful to expand on her, and Derrida’s (1990), analysis of law and justice in this context, I have chosen to bypass this avenue for reasons of space. But it is worth noting that the idea of law as performative is also strongly conveyed in these texts.

  5. Portia, of course, saved the Christian Antonio from a lethal contract with the Jewish Shylock. Initially asking Shylock to be merciful, when he asks for enforcement of the contract in accordance with the law, she applies a highly formalist style of legal reasoning and then proceeds (punitively) to force Shylock’s conversion to Christianity and his reduction to poverty. All in the name of Christian humour, of course.

  6. There are some examples of such holding to account among the feminist judgments, for instance Re N (A Child) (judgment by Samantha Ashenden 2010); Roberts v Hopwood (judgment by Harriet Samuels); R v A (No. 2) (judgment by Clare McGlynn 2010).

  7. See the discussion of ‘transformative constitutionalism’ by Helen Carr and Caroline Hunter (2010) in their judgment on YL v Birmingham City Council, 325, and the commentary by Morag McDermont (2010), 317. While transformative constitutionalism does seem on the one hand to emphasise the role of the courts in using a constitution (or in this case the Human Rights Act) as a tool to transform society, it may also be a dialogue regarding power, participation and rights between formal law and the populace.

  8. See e.g. the feminist judgments in Porter v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (judgment by Anna Grear 2010); R v A (No 2) (judgment by Clare McGlynn 2010); Stone v Dobinson (judgment by Lois Bibbings 2010); R v Dhaliwal (judgment by Vanessa Munro and Sangeeta Shah 2010); Attorney General for Jersey v Holley (judgment by Susan Edwards 2010), among others.

  9. E.g. EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (judgment by Karon Monaghan 2010).

References

  • Ashenden, Samantha. 2010. Judgment—Re N (a child). In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 89–95. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Auchmuty, Rosemary. 2010. Judgment—Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Etridge (No. 2). In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 155–169. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker, Nicola, and Marie Fox. 2010. Judgment—Sheffield City Council v E. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 351–362. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backhouse, Constance. 2003. The chilly climate for women judges: Reflections on the backlash from the Ewanchuk case. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 15: 167–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bano, Samia, and Pragna Patel. 2010. Judgment—R v Zoora (Ghulam) Shah. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 278–291. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bankowski, Zenon. 2007. In the judgment space: The judge and the anxiety of the encounter. In The universal and the particular in legal reasoning, ed. Zenon Bankowski, and James MacLean, 25–40. London: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berns, Sandra. 1991. Integrity and justice or when is injustice mandated by integrity. Melbourne University Law Review 18: 258–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berns, Sandra. 1999. To speak as a judge: Difference, voice and power. Dartmouth: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bibbings, Lois. 2010. Judgment—R v Stone and Dobinson. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 234–240. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bridgman, Jo. 2010. Judgment—R v Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, ex parte Glass. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 369–380. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, Helen, and Caroline Hunter. 2010. Judgment—YL v Birmingham City Council. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 318–328. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinkin, Christine. 2001. Women’s international tribunal on Japanese military sexual slavery. American Journal of International Law 95: 335–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conaghan, Joanne. 2010. Commentary on James v Eastleigh Borough Council. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 414–419. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornell, Drucilla. 1992. The philosophy of the limit. New York: Routledge.

  • Cover, Robert. 1983. Nomos and narrative. Harvard Law Review 97: 4–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalton, Clare. 1988. Where we stand: Observations on the situation of feminist legal thought. Berkeley Women’s Law Journal 3: 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, Margaret. 1996. Delimiting the law: ‘Postmodernism’ and the politics of law. London: Pluto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, Margaret. 2008. Feminism and the flat law theory. Feminist Legal Studies 16: 281–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, Margaret. 2011. Feminism and the idea of law. feminists@law 1F.

  • Derrida, Jacques. 1981. Dissemination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, Jacques. 1988. Limited inc. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derrida, Jacques. 1990. Force of law: The “mystical foundations of authority”. Cardozo Law Review 11: 920–1044.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diduck, Alison. 2010. Judgment—In re G (children) (residence: same-sex partner). In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 102–113. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, Ronald. 1986. Law’s empire. London: Fontana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, Susan. 2010. Commentary on R v Zoora (Ghulam) Shah. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 273–277. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich, Eugen. 1922. The sociology of law. Harvard Law Review 36: 130–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feenan, Dermot. 2009. Editorial introduction: Women and judging. Feminist Legal Studies 17: 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, Clifford. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. London: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grear, Anna. 2010. Judgment—Porter v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 174–183. Oxford: Hart.

  • Hale, Brenda. 2010. Foreword. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, Rosie. 2010. Judgment—Wilkinson v Kitzinger. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 430–442. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris-Short, Sonia. 2010. Judgment—Evans v Amicus Healthcare Ltd. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 64–82. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hastings, Geraldine. 2010. Judgment—Re A (children) (conjoined twins: surgical separation). In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 139–148. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horton, Rachel, and Grace James. 2010. Judgment—Mundon v Del Monte Foods. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 401–413. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, Rosemary. 2002. Border protection in law’s empire: Feminist explorations of access to justice. Griffith Law Review 11: 263–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, Rosemary. 2010. An account of feminist judging. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 30–43. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, Rosemary, Clare McGlynn, and Erica Rackley. 2010. Feminist judgments: An introduction. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 3–29. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutchinson, Allan. 1987. Indiana Dworkin and law’s empire. Yale Law Journal 96: 637–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxtable, Richard. 2010. Commentary on Re A (children) (conjoined twins: surgical separation). In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 134–138. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klare, Karl. 1998. Legal culture and transformative constitutionalism. South African Journal on Human Rights 14: 146–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Llewellyn, Karl. 1931. Some realism about realism—Responding to Dean Pound. Harvard Law Review 4: 1222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, Robin. 2010. Judgement—R v Brown. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erica Rackley, 247–254. Oxford: Hart.

  • MacKinnon, Catharine. 1983. Feminism, Marxism, method and the state: Toward feminist jurisprudence. Signs 8: 635–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Majury, Diana. 2006. Introducing the Women’s Court of Canada. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 18: 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malik, Maleiha. 2010. Judgment—R (Begum) v Governors of Denbigh High School. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 336–345. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermont, Morag. 2010. Commentary on YL v Birmingham City Council and Others. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 311–317. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGlynn, Clare. 2010. Judgment—R v A (No. 2). In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erica Rackley, 211–227. Oxford: Hart.

  • Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 1988. Feminist legal theory, critical legal studies, and legal education or, the “fem-crits go to law school”. Journal of Legal Education 38: 61–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Monaghan, Karen. 2010. Judgment—EM (Lebanon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 449–458. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulcahy, Linda, and Cathy Andrews. 2010. Judgment—Baird Textile Holdings v Marks & Spencer Plc. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 189–204. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munro, Vanessa, and Sangeeta Shah. 2010. Judgment—R v Dhaliwal. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 261–272. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rackley, Erica. 2002. Representations of the (woman) judge: Hercules, the little mermaid, and the vain and naked emperor. Legal Studies 22: 602–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rackley, Erica. 2005. When Hercules met the happy prince: Reimagining the judge. Texas Wesleyan Law Review 12: 213–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rifkin, Janet. 1980. Toward a theory of law and patriarchy. Harvard Women’s Law Journal 3: 80–95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach Anleu, Sharyn, and Kathy Mack. 2009. Gender, judging and job satisfaction. Feminist Legal Studies 17: 79–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roach Anleu, Sharyn, and Kathy Mack. 2011. Opportunities for new approaches to judging in a conventional context: Attitudes, skills and practices. Monash Law Review 37: 187–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, Sally. 2010. Commentary on Evans v Amicus Healthcare. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 59–63. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, Julius. 1959. The ratio of the ratio decidendi. Modern Law Review 22: 597–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, Margaret. 2007. “Otherness” on the bench: How merit is gendered. Sydney Law Review 29: 391–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wightman, John. 2010. Commentary on Baird Textile Holdings v Marks & Spencer. In Feminist judgments: From theory to practice, ed. Rosemary Hunter, Clare McGlynn, and Erika Rackley, 184–188. Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Mary Heath, Justice Jayne Jagot, and Kathy Mack for their very helpful comments, conversation, and references.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia

    Margaret Davies

Authors
  1. Margaret Davies
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Margaret Davies.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Davies, M. The Law Becomes Us: Rediscovering Judgment. Fem Leg Stud 20, 167–181 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-012-9204-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10691-012-9204-y

Search

Navigation