Rationality, Generalizations, and Loyalty
Robert Justin Lipkin
RJLipkin at AOL.COM
Tue Sep 18 15:59:03 PDT 2001
Sandy Levinson writes: "And, if one of our jobs as law professors is
to try to predict/manipulate judicial doctrine, then there's little reason to
believe that a reliance on persuading courts of the "irrationality" of
discriminatory conduct is going to save us (or, more to the point, the
victims of the conduct in question)."
If we're looking for institutional solutions to protect against
unresponsive courts, we might reconsider some of the proposals rejected
during the Founding, particularly proposals for creating a final
constitutional arbiter other than the Court, or at least we might consider
contemporary reconstructions of these proposals. What I have in mind has
been recently championed by both conservative and progressive theorists
though in very different ways, namely, returning to the people or their
representatives the final say in interpreting the Constitution. This
suggestion permits the Court to engage in its distinctive "judicial
reasoning," if such exists, reasoning which will be final in most
circumstances, while at the same time giving the ultimate final say over
judgments of constitutionality, at least in certain kinds of cases, to the
elected branches of government. This suggestion permits us to retain the best
of two important worlds, namely, the world of political philosophy generated
by the best of judicial decisions and the ultimate normative authority of the
people or their representatives.
Now is not the time to flesh out proposals of this sort and I would
agree with Sandy that relying exclusively on the courts will not save
victims of irrationality, nor will it provide a vehicle for redressing their
grievances against the government. That has certainly been a failed
experiment.
Bobby Lipkin
Widener University School of Law
Delaware
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20010918/b4237e7d/attachment.htm
More information about the Conlawprof
mailing list