Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=881521
 
 

Citations (1)



 
 

Footnotes (131)



 


 



Does Philosophy Deserve a Place at the Supreme Court?


Thom Brooks


Durham University


Rutgers Law Record, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2003

Abstract:     
This Comment demonstrates that policy judgements are not masked by philosophical references, nor do philosophers play any crucial role in contentious judicial decisions. Neomi Rao's study is flawed for many reasons: incomplete content analysis, poor assessment of data, and an inadequate definition of philosophy. She should be criticised for hypocritically praising Court philosopher references in some instances and not others, especially with regard to the Court's early development. This Comment searched unsuccessfully for an instance where philosophers were cited just once in controversial cases regarding racial integration, capital punishment's abolition and re-legality, and the 2000 Presidential election. Philosophers are peculiarly absent from major controversial cases.

Rao claims the Court's majority decisions avoided the "Philosophers' Brief" because the philosophers' argument was grounded in theory, not substantive legal argument surrounding issues of judicial precedent. This Comment challenges Rao's use of "philosophy" as something entirely abstract and steeped in metaphysics. Philosophy is presented as a large umbrella covering diverse sub-fields, two of which are philosophy of law and political philosophy. These sub-fields are of great use to law. Thus, the Court has not illegitimately used philosophers to support personal policy preferences. Nor is the use of philosophy incommensurable with judicial decision-making.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 17

Keywords: Rao, philosophy, philosophers, legal, jurisprudence, supreme court, brief, vacco, glucksberg, Rehnquist, Dworkin, Rawls, Nussbaum, Roe, Wade, abortion, euthanasia, Plato, O'Connor,Scalia, justice, metaphysics, The Philosopher's Brief, Scanlon, Palko, Blackmun, Cruzan, Bush, Furman, Jurek, Georgia

JEL Classification: K00, K10, K14, K19, K30, K39, K40, K49

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: February 8, 2006 ; Last revised: January 21, 2011

Suggested Citation

Brooks, Thom, Does Philosophy Deserve a Place at the Supreme Court?. Rutgers Law Record, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2003. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=881521

Contact Information

Thom Brooks (Contact Author)
Durham University ( email )
Durham Law School
Durham University
Durham, County Durham DH1 3ET
United Kingdom
+441913342800 (Phone)
HOME PAGE: http://www.dur.ac.uk/law/staff/?mode=staff&id=11140
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 1,534
Downloads: 235
Download Rank: 74,228
Citations:  1
Footnotes:  131

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo4 in 0.281 seconds