What Is Cass Sunstein´s Incompletely Theorized Theory?

To explore his question Rosenberg looks into different court cases in which believers of the dynamic court view think had the most impact on

What would a person who follow the Natural Law School of thought have to say about the Dudley and Stephens’ case and why would they say it?

It is stated that “the problem is that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in the DOMA case, did not explicitly address the constitutionality of laws against same-sex marriage, even as he eloquently condemned Congress for demeaning married same-sex couples” (Los Angeles Times). To determine why it is taking so long for the justices to stop prolonging the issue, the article looks at the evidence of how information has not been completely addressed. It is clear that the higher courts have yet to finalize a decision on same-sex marriage. Court observers hypothesized that justices wanted the ruling of same-sex marriage to go to the lower courts because the process is proving will prolong for years until a final decision is made. However, “the speed with which lawyers and lower-court judges are pressing the issue suggests that the justices will have to confront it sooner rather than later” (Los Angeles Times). This is a representation of the definition of a forensic argument, to look at the actions of the past to determine the present.

It is often believed that the relationship between certainty and flexibility in judicial precedent has struck a fine line between being necessary and being precarious. The problem is that these two concepts of judicial precedent are seen as working against each other and not in tandem. There is proof, however, that as contrasting as they are on the surface they are actually working together to achieve one common goal.

The questions presented to the Supreme Court in Raich v. Gonzales (2005) are whether the Commerce Clause affords Congress the power to ban the growth, use, and sale of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act and whether it can enforce that act against ill people whose doctors have prescribed medical marijuana as a remedy. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice John Paul Stevens employed Justice Stephen Breyer’s strand of pragmatism to answer those questions. The premise of Breyer’s approach is that the Constitution enshrines values and principles, but it grants judges the flexibility to apply those principles to changing circumstances (Yale 11). Hence, pragmatist judges embrace constitutional

The court observed that the ‘legal meaning’, i.e. meaning the legislature is taken to have intended, may not correspond to the literal or grammatical meaning. As four justices put

“Justice is not to be taken by storm. She is to be wooed by slow advances. Substitute statute for decision, and you shift the center of authority, but add no quota of inspired wisdom.” —— Benjamin N. Cardozo[1]. In the view of many citizens, Supreme Court Justices are like legal machines, interpreting constitution to promise American people of equal justice. Throughout American history, numerous case laws have established the pattern of judicial decisions of U.S., thus making little room for new legislation. However, even Supreme Court Justices are human beings, who can be influenced by various factors. It’s not that simple to determine the inclination of a justice to his or her religious belief, political philosophy and ideology. The essence of judicial process requires a justice to vote under any circumstance based on law, precedents and most important, constitution. No Supreme Court Justice will say that he or she has personal or political

It is easy to see that the legal factors involved are themselves not perfect. Since the Court is made up of human beings who are similarly imperfect, it is not implausible to suppose that the Court likewise

“Their present decision is equivalent to a repeal of law and the making of law. This is not adjudication, it is mere usurpation. It is the substitution of mere arbitrary will in the place of the solemn and responsible functions of an impartial judicature.”[1]

The Supreme Court decision in Buck v. Bell displays some clues to the values of early twentieth century American society. The interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution is the lynchpin of the decision, and the values of the court can be derived from it. In this essay I will demonstrate that the ambiguity of the Amendment in question has significant consequences, the ethics of the interpretation of the Amendment is derived form the paternalistic nature of the Constitution, and that equality of the law is subservient to the desire for a homogeneous and comfortable cultural environment.

The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.

Legal cases are generally decided upon when a judge applies the law to the facts of the case; however, the Constitution is ambiguous which means it can be comprehended differently. The way the Constitution is translated in today 's society and applied to modern laws is a responsibility that the Supreme Court justices must uptake. Many factors are believed to play a role in how exactly justices finalize and make their decision, which is why political sciences created three different models of judicial decision making. The legal model, attitudinal model, and strategic model help us grasp a better understanding of what may influence the decision making process. As stated earlier, some decisions are based on the law being applied to the facts, and this decision process is explained in the legal model. The legal model also expresses how justices, in addition to using facts and the law, can use information from previous and almost equivalent cases helping them determine their decisions. Unlike the legal model, the attitudinal model explains how justice’s policy preferences can influence their decision. This model shows how legal text of the Constitution could possibly be ignored, and instead the justices’ own opinions, just like politicians, would guide them through the decision making process. According to Unit 8 Video Engager, it is believed that the justices may take this approach due to the fact that they are entitled to a

Legal reasoning, according to Critical Legal Studies, is in fact nothing more than a manipulation of abstract categories with no

This article discusses the conceptions of legal normativity, both moral and “strictly legal” conceptions. According to Spaak, regarding the normative force of legal justification, legal positivists can still embrace the moral idea and not be in conflict with their generally held belief in the “strictly legal” concept of law. In Torben Spaak’s opinion, there is a reason to desire legal positivism; he explains this through introducing the concept of jurisprudence. When discussing the nature of law, Spaak states, “that while the moral conception is what is likely favored on a smaller scale, the strictly legal conception is more appealing because it is broader,” (478). Spaak is arguing, his belief that “validity-based explanations come nearer to the truth,”(483) rather than belief-based explanations. He concludes that we are to prefer legal positivism over natural law theory. “That is why in this article I have been concerned with the law itself rather than our views about it.”(483)

Hart’s critique of Austin boils down to determining the normativity of law (the reason why we should