Solving Problems V. Claiming Rights: The Pragmatist Challenge to Legal Liberalism

William H. Simon
{"title":"Solving Problems V. Claiming Rights: The Pragmatist Challenge to Legal Liberalism","authors":"William H. Simon","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.459325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent developments in both theory and practice have inspired a new understanding of public interest lawyering. The theoretical development is an intensified interest in Pragmatism. The practical development is the emergence of a style of social reform that seeks to institutionalize the Pragmatist vision of democratic governance as learning and experimentation. This style is reflected in a variety of innovative responses to social problems, including drug courts, ecosystem management, and \"new accountability\" educational reform. The new understanding represents a significant challenge to an influential view of law among politically liberal lawyers over the past 50 years. That view - Legal Liberalism - is less a creature of academic theory than an implicit popular jurisprudence of practicing lawyers. It consists of a cluster of ideas associated with the Warren Court, the ACLU, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Ralph Nader, and the legal aid and public defender movements. This essay seeks to reconsider Legal Liberalism in the light of the Pragmatist approach and to offer a tentative appraisal of the newcomer. It begins by explicating the sometimes - tacit premises of Legal Liberalism and exploring its shortcomings. It then introduces the contrasting premises of the Pragmatist approach as they appear in a variety of recent works of legal scholarship. It illustrates the Pragmatist approach with a discussion of two case studies - one of drug courts and one of \"second generation\" employment discrimination remedies. It concludes with some comments about ambiguities and limitations of Legal Pragmatism.","PeriodicalId":75324,"journal":{"name":"William and Mary law review","volume":"46 1","pages":"127"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"44","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"William and Mary law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.459325","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 44

Abstract

Recent developments in both theory and practice have inspired a new understanding of public interest lawyering. The theoretical development is an intensified interest in Pragmatism. The practical development is the emergence of a style of social reform that seeks to institutionalize the Pragmatist vision of democratic governance as learning and experimentation. This style is reflected in a variety of innovative responses to social problems, including drug courts, ecosystem management, and "new accountability" educational reform. The new understanding represents a significant challenge to an influential view of law among politically liberal lawyers over the past 50 years. That view - Legal Liberalism - is less a creature of academic theory than an implicit popular jurisprudence of practicing lawyers. It consists of a cluster of ideas associated with the Warren Court, the ACLU, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Ralph Nader, and the legal aid and public defender movements. This essay seeks to reconsider Legal Liberalism in the light of the Pragmatist approach and to offer a tentative appraisal of the newcomer. It begins by explicating the sometimes - tacit premises of Legal Liberalism and exploring its shortcomings. It then introduces the contrasting premises of the Pragmatist approach as they appear in a variety of recent works of legal scholarship. It illustrates the Pragmatist approach with a discussion of two case studies - one of drug courts and one of "second generation" employment discrimination remedies. It concludes with some comments about ambiguities and limitations of Legal Pragmatism.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
解决问题V.权利主张:实用主义对法律自由主义的挑战
最近的理论和实践的发展激发了对公益律师的新认识。理论的发展是对实用主义兴趣的增强。实践的发展是一种社会改革风格的出现,它寻求将民主治理的实用主义愿景制度化,作为学习和实验。这种风格反映在对社会问题的各种创新回应中,包括毒品法庭、生态系统管理和“新问责制”教育改革。这种新的理解对过去50年来政治自由主义律师中颇具影响力的法律观点构成了重大挑战。这种观点——法律自由主义——与其说是学术理论的产物,不如说是执业律师隐含的流行法学。它包含了与沃伦法院、美国公民自由联盟、全国有色人种协进会法律辩护基金、拉尔夫·纳德以及法律援助和公共辩护运动有关的一系列想法。本文试图从实用主义的角度重新审视法律自由主义,并对这一新生事物进行尝试性评价。本文首先阐述了法律自由主义有时隐含的前提,并探讨了其不足之处。然后介绍了实用主义方法的对比前提,因为它们出现在各种最近的法律学术著作中。它通过对两个案例研究的讨论说明了实用主义的方法——一个是毒品法庭,一个是“第二代”就业歧视补救措施。最后对法律实用主义的模糊性和局限性进行了评述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
GENETIC DUTIES. Functional Corporate Knowledge THE GENETIC INFORMATION NONDISCRIMINATION ACT AT AGE 10: GINA'S CONTROVERSIAL ASSERTION THAT DATA TRANSPARENCY PROTECTS PRIVACY AND CIVIL RIGHTS. Prosecuting Poverty, Criminalizing Care Pereira's Aftershocks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1