Georgetown Law Journal最新文献_第3页

In Praise of Realism (and Against 'Nonsense' Jurisprudence) 赞扬现实主义(反对“无意义”的法理学)

IF 2 2区社会学

Georgetown Law Journal Pub Date : 2010-01-23 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.1113461

B. Leiter

{"title":"In Praise of Realism (and Against 'Nonsense' Jurisprudence)","authors":"B. Leiter","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1113461","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1113461","url":null,"abstract":"(This is a significantly revised version of a paper first posted in March 2008.) Ronald Dworkin describes an approach to how courts should decide cases that he associates with Judge Richard Posner as a \"Chicago School of anti-theoretical, no-nonsense jurisprudence.\" Since Professor Dworkin takes his own view of adjudication to be diametrically opposed to that of the Chicago School, it might seem fair, then, to describe Dworkin's own theory as an instance of pro-theoretical, nonsense jurisprudence. That characterization is not one, needless to say, that Professor Dworkin welcomes. Dworkin describes his preferred approach to jurisprudential questions, to be sure, as theoretical, in opposition to what he calls the practical orientation of the Chicago School. But while there is a real dispute between Dworkin and Posner, it is not one illuminated by the contrast between theory and practice. It is, rather a dispute about the kind of theory that is relevant and illuminating when it comes to law and adjudication. And the fault line marked by this dispute is profound indeed, one that extends far beyond Dworkin and Posner and has a venerable and ancient history that includes Thucydides and Plato, Nietzsche and Kant, Marx and Hegel, up to Geuss and Rawls in the present. I shall describe it, instead, as a dispute between Moralists and Realists, between those whose starting point is a theory of how things (morally) ought to be versus those who begin with a theory of how things really are. The essay endeavors to show that our contemporaries, Ronald Dworkin and Richard Posner, are reenacting a version of the dispute between the paradigmatic philosophical moralist Plato and the paradigmatic historical realist Thucydides. The paper concludes by connecting the Posner-Dworkin dispute with recent \"realist\" critiques of Rawlsian political philosophy, trying to clarify the grounds for skepticism about the practical relevance of such theorizing.","PeriodicalId":47702,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown Law Journal","volume":"12 1","pages":"865"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2010-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81859874","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 18

Witchcraft and Statecraft: Liberal Democracy in Africa 巫术与治国:非洲的自由民主

IF 2 2区社会学

Georgetown Law Journal Pub Date : 2007-08-29 DOI: 10.31228/osf.io/synmx

N. Tebbe

引用次数: 30

Medical treatment for Asian immigrant children--does mother know best? 亚洲移民儿童的医疗——母亲最了解吗?

IF 2 2区社会学

Georgetown Law Journal Pub Date : 2004-08-01

Susan Hall Dudley

引用次数: 0

Optimal War and Jus Ad Bellum 最优战争和战时正义

IF 2 2区社会学

Georgetown Law Journal Pub Date : 2004-04-01 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.546104

E. Posner, A. Sykes

引用次数: 24

Private Language, Public Laws: The Central Role of Legislative Intent in Statutory Interpretation 私语、公法:立法意图在法律解释中的核心作用

IF 2 2区社会学

Georgetown Law Journal Pub Date : 2004-03-01 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.515022

L. Solan

{"title":"Private Language, Public Laws: The Central Role of Legislative Intent in Statutory Interpretation","authors":"L. Solan","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.515022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.515022","url":null,"abstract":"For decades, the use of legislative intent in statutory interpretation has been attacked both by conservative and progressive theorists. The more conservative textualists claim that judges should focus not on what members of the legislature had in mind, but rather on what the statute says. Theorists with more liberal political orientations claim that concern about a legislature's intent can inhibit a court from allowing the meaning of a statute to change with the times. All critics argue that the idea of a large group of people having a single intent is incoherent. Using advances in linguistics, philosophy and the psychology of language, this article defends the use of legislative intent against both camps. It argues that we routinely perceive groups that make decisions deliberately as entities with a single intent, and that we routinely draw inferences about the minds of others in understanding language and conduct. These ways of understanding the world are so firmly embedded in our psychology that we cannot dispense with them even if we try. The article further argues that we cannot avoid concerning ourselves with the intent of a speaker in understanding language, and that arguments to the contrary are based on an illusion about how the human language faculty works. In fact, on many occasions courts use the intent of the legislature to justify approaches to statutory interpretation that are presented as alternatives to legislative intent. Finally, legislative intent is compared to other values that courts may consider important, and a broader perspective on the interpretation of statutes is developed.","PeriodicalId":47702,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown Law Journal","volume":"20 1","pages":"427"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0,"publicationDate":"2004-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75010579","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 17

Who decides? Genital-normalizing surgery on intersexed infants. 谁决定?阴阳人婴儿生殖器正常化手术。

IF 2 2区社会学

Georgetown Law Journal Pub Date : 2003-11-01

Alyssa Connell Lareau

引用次数: 0

Colored Speech: Cross Burnings, Epistemics, and the Triumph of the Crits? 有色语言:焚烧十字架、认识论和批判的胜利?

IF 2 2区社会学

Georgetown Law Journal Pub Date : 2003-10-20 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.463280

G. Charles

引用次数: 3

The scope of utility in the twenty-first century: new guidance for gene-related patents. 二十一世纪的实用范围:基因相关专利的新指南。