101 Politicians' or the People's Court?

[Frank Cross]

Perhaps I still misunderstand you.  But if the people are engaged in 
accountability-during, I assumed that would mean influencing how the court 
decides.  And if the public has any say in how the court decides, I would 
think that might sit uneasily with the rule of law.  Presumably, the public 
would not have read the briefs or engaged in oral argument and would be 
using nonlegal standards in having their say.  If the public doesn't have a 
say in outcomes, I'm not sure what you mean by accountability-during.



At 05:11 PM 9/12/2005, RJLipkin at aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 9/12/2005 4:48:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
>crossf at mail.utexas.edu writes:
>But I think the big difference is in "rule of law."  Would you permit the 
>people to bind themselves and create a structure limiting 
>accountability-out and accountability-during, on the grounds that they 
>wanted to maintain the rule of law in the public interest and that such 
>accountability would undermine that interest?
>
>         I do not see how these forms of accountability undermine the rule 
> of law.  Indeed, the idea of "the rule of law" is importantly one of 
> those "essentially contested" notions. At least, I would need to know in 
> great detail what "the rule of law" means before I could answer the above 
> question?
>
>Bobby
>
>Robert Justin Lipkin
>Professor of Law
>Widener University School of Law
>Delaware

**********************************************************

Frank Cross
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station B6000
Austin, TX 78712-1178
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20050912/19df1f17/attachment.html