Constitutional Law, Moral Judgment, and the Supreme Court as Super-Legislature

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q2 LAW Hastings Law Journal Pub Date : 2015-02-27 DOI:10.2139/SSRN.2547972
B. Leiter
{"title":"Constitutional Law, Moral Judgment, and the Supreme Court as Super-Legislature","authors":"B. Leiter","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2547972","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I defend and explore three claims in this lecture. First, there is very little actual “law” in federal constitutional law in the United States, especially with respect to cases that end up at the U.S. Supreme Court: there, the Court operates as a kind of super-legislature, albeit one with a limited jurisdiction, essentially making decisions based on the moral and political values of the justices, and not on the basis of legally binding standards. This is, in part, a jurisprudential thesis about what counts as “legally binding standards,” one that I shall defend by reference to the most plausible account of the nature of law, the legal positivist theory developed by H.L.A. Hart and Joseph Raz. Second, the absence of law in so many parts of federal constitutional law means that the quality of moral and political judgment exercised by judges is of decisive importance in how they fulfill their role and thus should be the overriding factor in the appointment of federal appellate judges, especially Supreme Court Justices. That brings me to my third claim, namely, that all political actors know that the U.S. Supreme Court often operates as a super-legislature, and thus that the moral and political views of the Justices are decisive criteria for their appointment. This almost banal truth is, however, rarely discussed in the public confirmation process, but is common knowledge among political and legal insiders. To be sure there is media speculation about the political predilections of the nominees, but their actual moral and political views are treated as off limits in the real confirmation process. This anti-democratic secrecy is, in my view, deeply wrong and must be replaced with a realistic acknowledgment of the role of the Supreme Court as a political actor of limited jurisdiction. I will illustrate these claims by discussing a number of important public law cases, recent and not-so-recent, including New York v. U.S., Heller, Hobby Lobby, Shelby County, and others.","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":"11 1","pages":"1601"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2015-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"21","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hastings Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2547972","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 21

Abstract

I defend and explore three claims in this lecture. First, there is very little actual “law” in federal constitutional law in the United States, especially with respect to cases that end up at the U.S. Supreme Court: there, the Court operates as a kind of super-legislature, albeit one with a limited jurisdiction, essentially making decisions based on the moral and political values of the justices, and not on the basis of legally binding standards. This is, in part, a jurisprudential thesis about what counts as “legally binding standards,” one that I shall defend by reference to the most plausible account of the nature of law, the legal positivist theory developed by H.L.A. Hart and Joseph Raz. Second, the absence of law in so many parts of federal constitutional law means that the quality of moral and political judgment exercised by judges is of decisive importance in how they fulfill their role and thus should be the overriding factor in the appointment of federal appellate judges, especially Supreme Court Justices. That brings me to my third claim, namely, that all political actors know that the U.S. Supreme Court often operates as a super-legislature, and thus that the moral and political views of the Justices are decisive criteria for their appointment. This almost banal truth is, however, rarely discussed in the public confirmation process, but is common knowledge among political and legal insiders. To be sure there is media speculation about the political predilections of the nominees, but their actual moral and political views are treated as off limits in the real confirmation process. This anti-democratic secrecy is, in my view, deeply wrong and must be replaced with a realistic acknowledgment of the role of the Supreme Court as a political actor of limited jurisdiction. I will illustrate these claims by discussing a number of important public law cases, recent and not-so-recent, including New York v. U.S., Heller, Hobby Lobby, Shelby County, and others.
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
宪法、道德判断和作为超级立法机关的最高法院
我在这节课中捍卫并探讨了三个观点。首先,在美国,联邦宪法中几乎没有真正的“法律”,尤其是那些最终交由美国最高法院审理的案件:在最高法院,法院作为一种超级立法机构运作,尽管它的管辖权有限,基本上是根据法官的道德和政治价值观做出决定,而不是根据具有法律约束力的标准。在某种程度上,这是一篇关于什么是“具有法律约束力的标准”的法理学论文,我将引用H.L.A. Hart和Joseph Raz提出的法律实证主义理论,对法律的本质进行最合理的解释。其次,联邦宪法中如此多的部分缺乏法律,这意味着法官的道德和政治判断质量对他们如何履行其职责具有决定性的重要性,因此应该成为任命联邦上诉法官,特别是最高法院法官的首要因素。这就引出了我的第三个主张,即所有的政治参与者都知道,美国最高法院经常作为一个超级立法机构运作,因此,法官的道德和政治观点是任命他们的决定性标准。然而,这一几乎老生常谈的事实在公开确认过程中很少被讨论,但在政界和法律界人士中却是常识。诚然,媒体对被提名人的政治倾向有猜测,但他们实际的道德和政治观点在实际的确认过程中被视为禁区。在我看来,这种反民主的保密是非常错误的,必须以现实的方式承认最高法院作为具有有限管辖权的政治行动者的作用来取代。我将通过讨论一些重要的公法案例来说明这些主张,这些案例有最近的,也有不那么近的,包括纽约诉美国、海勒、霍比大厅、谢尔比县等。
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
期刊介绍: Hastings College of the Law was founded in 1878 as the first law department of the University of California, and today is one of the top-rated law schools in the United States. Its alumni span the globe and are among the most respected lawyers, judges and business leaders today. Hastings was founded in 1878 as the first law department of the University of California and is one of the most exciting and vibrant legal education centers in the nation. Our faculty are nationally renowned as both teachers and scholars.
期刊最新文献
Corporations and the Original Meaning of 'Citizens' in Article III Law of the State and Politics Beyond the Double Veto: Housing Plans as Preemptive Intergovernmental Compacts Unmasking the Right of Publicity History, Tradition, the Supreme Court, and the First Amendment
×
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