Wednesday, March 11, 2015
I was mostly interested in Scalia and Dworkin's disagreement over legal principles. It seems that Dworkin thinks law propagates non-dated, abstract principles whereas Scalia sees these principles as abstract, but read and interpreted in a dated way. I like Scalia's broader argument for textualism, but this discrepancy involves the nebulous concept of principles. I feel like a more developed account of legal principles would be helpful. Any strong opinions supporting either Scalia or Dworkin?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Actually something I was curious about why Scalia was worried about the tyranny of the majority: he is worried that public opinion will sway the decisions of the judges. I understand this worry, but I am more worried about the tyranny of one. Although it is possible for public opinion to sway the judges, they have no intensive to adhere to public opinion. Judges are not elected. It seems more likely that tyranny of the majority is less likely than tyranny of one judge.
ReplyDelete