Common Law Judging : Subjectivity, Impartiality, and the Making of Law /

Are judges supposed to be objective? Citizens, scholars, and legal professionals commonly assume that subjectivity and objectivity are opposites, with the corollary that subjectivity is a vice and objectivity is a virtue. These assumptions underlie passionate debates over adherence to original inten...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Edlin, Douglas E. (Author)
Format: Electronic eBook
Language:English
Published: Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press, [2016]
Series:Book collections on Project MUSE.
Subjects:
Online Access:Full text available:
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000cam a22000004a 4500
001 musev2_47544
003 MdBmJHUP
005 20240815120743.0
006 m o d
007 cr||||||||nn|n
008 160209s2016 miu o 00 0 eng d
010 |z  2020707300 
020 |a 9780472122158 
020 |z 9780472902347 
020 |z 0472130021 
020 |z 9780472130023 
020 |z 0472122150 
035 |a (OCoLC)956541684 
040 |a MdBmJHUP  |c MdBmJHUP 
100 1 |a Edlin, Douglas E.,  |e author. 
245 1 0 |a Common Law Judging :   |b Subjectivity, Impartiality, and the Making of Law /   |c Douglas E. Edlin. 
264 1 |a Ann Arbor :  |b University of Michigan Press,  |c [2016] 
264 3 |a Baltimore, Md. :  |b Project MUSE,   |c 2016 
264 4 |c ©[2016] 
300 |a 1 online resource (312 pages). 
336 |a text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a computer  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a online resource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
505 0 |a Introduction -- Subjectivity, objectivity, impartiality -- Subjectivity and intersubjectivity -- Making law -- Judicial individualism and judicial independence -- Conclusion. 
506 0 |a Open Access  |f Unrestricted online access  |2 star 
520 |a Are judges supposed to be objective? Citizens, scholars, and legal professionals commonly assume that subjectivity and objectivity are opposites, with the corollary that subjectivity is a vice and objectivity is a virtue. These assumptions underlie passionate debates over adherence to original intent and judicial activism. Douglas Edlin challenges these widely held assumptions by reorienting the entire discussion. Rather than analyze judging in terms of objectivity and truth, he argues that we should instead approach the role of a judge's individual perspective in terms of intersubjectivity and validity. Drawing upon Kantian aesthetic theory as well as case law, legal theory, and constitutional theory, Edlin develops a new conceptual framework for the respective roles of the individual judge and of the judiciary as an institution, as well as the relationship between them, as integral parts of the broader legal and political community. 
588 |a Description based on print version record. 
650 7 |a Judicial process.  |2 fast  |0 (OCoLC)fst00984705 
650 7 |a Common law.  |2 fast  |0 (OCoLC)fst00869795 
650 7 |a Political Science / American Government / Judicial Branch.  |2 bisacsh 
650 6 |a Processus judiciaire  |z Anglophonie. 
650 6 |a Common law. 
650 0 |a Judicial process  |z English-speaking countries. 
650 0 |a Common law. 
651 7 |a English-speaking countries.  |2 fast  |0 (OCoLC)fst01261775 
655 7 |a Electronic books.   |2 local 
710 2 |a Project Muse.  |e distributor 
830 0 |a Book collections on Project MUSE. 
856 4 0 |z Full text available:   |u https://muse.jhu.edu/book/47544/ 
945 |a Project MUSE - 2016 Complete 
945 |a Project MUSE - 2016 Political Science and Policy Studies 
999 |c 231779  |d 231778