Add to ORKGThis paper suggests a way of thinking about the legal reasoning done by conscientious judges working in a legal system during periods when those judges believed that their Supreme Court was malfunctioning. Seeing a legal system as a shared cooperative activity allows us to best understand how legal decision-making can remain consistent when it contains elements at the highest level which are believed not to be functioning properly
For more than a century, lawyers have written about legal reasoning, and the flow of books and artic...
Demystifying Legal Reasoning defends the proposition that there are no special forms of reasoning p...
This article, published in South Africa\u27s Constitutional Court Review, focuses on the Constitutio...
The topic of judicial reasoning has been largely excluded from high school law and social studies cu...
Some people are beginning to doubt that courts are doing well in responding to recent social problem...
Demystifying Legal Reasoning defends the proposition that there are no special forms of reasoning p...
Demystifying Legal Reasoning defends the proposition that there are no special forms of reasoning p...
Some have begun to doubt whether courts adequately respond to recent social problems. Formulated ru...
This paper addresses the issue of the legitimacy of judicial review from a methodological perspectiv...
Legal scholars exhaustively debate the substantive wisdom of Supreme Court decisions and the appropr...
Legal theorists advance conflicting theories to explain judicial reasoning, for example, that judges...
Demystifying Legal Reasoning defends the proposition that there are no special forms of reasoning p...
For more than a century, lawyers have written about legal reasoning, and the flow of books and artic...
This article considers why judiciaries appear to be reluctant to institutionally legitimate judicial...
If Dworkin is right that the existence of a single correct answer for each legal problem is a presup...
For more than a century, lawyers have written about legal reasoning, and the flow of books and artic...
Demystifying Legal Reasoning defends the proposition that there are no special forms of reasoning p...
This article, published in South Africa\u27s Constitutional Court Review, focuses on the Constitutio...
The topic of judicial reasoning has been largely excluded from high school law and social studies cu...
Some people are beginning to doubt that courts are doing well in responding to recent social problem...
Demystifying Legal Reasoning defends the proposition that there are no special forms of reasoning p...
Demystifying Legal Reasoning defends the proposition that there are no special forms of reasoning p...
Some have begun to doubt whether courts adequately respond to recent social problems. Formulated ru...
This paper addresses the issue of the legitimacy of judicial review from a methodological perspectiv...
Legal scholars exhaustively debate the substantive wisdom of Supreme Court decisions and the appropr...
Legal theorists advance conflicting theories to explain judicial reasoning, for example, that judges...
Demystifying Legal Reasoning defends the proposition that there are no special forms of reasoning p...
For more than a century, lawyers have written about legal reasoning, and the flow of books and artic...
This article considers why judiciaries appear to be reluctant to institutionally legitimate judicial...
If Dworkin is right that the existence of a single correct answer for each legal problem is a presup...
For more than a century, lawyers have written about legal reasoning, and the flow of books and artic...
Demystifying Legal Reasoning defends the proposition that there are no special forms of reasoning p...
This article, published in South Africa\u27s Constitutional Court Review, focuses on the Constitutio...