Making What Present Again? A Critique of Argumentative Judicial Representation

Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 34 (2):259-281 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Courts do many good things. Judges carefully consider individual claims and arguments,1 and contrast them against the law in light of evidence. Their decisions are argued for, are public, and can be contested in form and content in different hierarchical stages. Additionally, and among other things, these practices are said to contribute to the will-formation of the public sphere and improve the quality of the legislative process.2.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,610

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

De l’interprétation argumentative.Kohei Kida - 2019 - Corela. Cognition, Représentation, Langage 17.
Say it with Images: Drawing on Jerome Frank’s Ideas on Judicial Decision Making.Mateusz Stępień - 2019 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 32 (2):321-334.
Questioning Judicial Deliberations.Jan Komárek - 2009 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 29 (4):805-826.
When Judges Have a Hunch.Diana Richards - 2016 - Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie 102 (2):245-260.
Judicial review: a practising judge's perspective.S. Breyer - 1999 - Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 19 (2):153-166.
“This Argument Fails for Two Reasons…”: A Linguistic Analysis of Judicial Evaluation Strategies in US Supreme Court Judgments. [REVIEW]Davide Mazzi - 2010 - International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 23 (4):373-385.

Analytics

Added to PP
2023-06-27

Downloads
5 (#1,533,504)

6 months
3 (#967,057)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?