The Judiciary Is a They, Not an It: Two Fallacies of Interpretive Theory

@inproceedings{Vermeule2003TheJI,
  title={The Judiciary Is a They, Not an It: Two Fallacies of Interpretive Theory},
  author={Adrian Vermeule},
  year={2003}
}
In the theory of constitutional and statutory interpretation, dynamic arguments point to the beneficial effects on legislative behavior that will result if "judges" or "courts" adopt a particular approach to interpretation. In this paper I claim that such arguments are conceptually confused, and thus do not count as valid arguments at all. Dynamic arguments commit the fundamental mistake of overlooking the collective character of judicial institutions - of overlooking that the judiciary, like… CONTINUE READING

References

Publications referenced by this paper.
SHOWING 1-10 OF 35 REFERENCES

Sunstein, Why Does the American Constitution Lack Social and Economic Guarantees

R. Cass
  • 2003
VIEW 1 EXCERPT

The Juddiciary Is a They, Not an It: Two Fallacies of Interpretive Theory (September

Adrian Vermeule
  • 2003
VIEW 1 EXCERPT

Hasday, The Principle and Practice of Women’s “Full Citizenship”: A Case Study of Sex-Segregated Public Education

Jill Elaine
  • 2002