Late-Stage Textualism

IF 2 2区社会学 Q1 LAW

Supreme Court Review Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1086/719651

R. Doerfler

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Are “canons of construction” embarrassing? For a long time, the answer was “yes.” Exposed as “contradictory” by Karl Llewellyn, a generation of legal thinkers understood interpretive canons to be so malleable in their application as to operate mostly as pretext. Rather than bring predictability to statutory decisions, the availability of more than one interpretive canon in nearly any appellate case meant that a canon’s invocation worked mostly to obscure the choice (conscious or not) by judges between legally permissible outcomes. Interpretive canons were thus tools of legalmystification, providing the appearance of law towhat were, ultimately, acts of discretion.

查看原文本刊更多论文

晚期校勘学

“建筑经典”令人尴尬吗？很长一段时间以来，答案都是“是的”。卡尔·卢埃林（Karl Llewellyn）揭露了这一代法律思想家的“矛盾”，他们认为解释准则在应用中是如此具有可塑性，以至于主要作为借口。在几乎任何上诉案件中，都有一个以上的解释性正典，这并没有为法定判决带来可预测性，这意味着一个正典的援引主要是为了掩盖法官在法律允许的结果之间的选择（有意识或无意识）。因此，解释性经典是法律神秘化的工具，提供了法律的外观，最终是自由裁量权的行为。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Supreme Court Review LAW-

CiteScore

1.80

自引率

5.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Since it first appeared in 1960, the Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court"s most significant decisions. SCR is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.