Abstract
Criticism of court decisions is a favored American pastime. Typically, such criticisms are grounded in extra-legal criteria such as common sense (or lack of it) and morality (or immorality). Thus Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill (1978) in which the Supreme Court halted the construction of the nearly completed Tellico Dam because it endangered the habitat of the snail darter, an action forbidden by the Endangered Species Act, was said to confound common sense; and many have called immoral Roe v. Wade (1973) which said the right to abortion, at least through the first trimester, was constitutionally guaranteed. 1 However, even if such criticisms are justified, they do not address the legal issue, which is whether the court got the law wrong
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,316
External links

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

The Concept of Law.Hla Hart - 1961 - Oxford University Press.
Law’s Empire.Ronald Dworkin - 1986 - Harvard University Press.
The Concept of Law.Hla Hart - 1961 - Oxford University Press UK.
The Concept of Law.Stuart M. Brown - 1963 - Philosophical Review 72 (2):250.
Law's Empire.Ken Kress - 1986 - Ethics 97 (4):834-860.

View all 6 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-02-26

Total views
26 ( #441,389 of 2,519,491 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #407,153 of 2,519,491 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes