Search the Lounge

Categories

« Core Methodologies for Law Practice | Main | Yikes! Donors! »

September 23, 2014

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David Bernstein

Exactly what I thought when I read Stevens' remarks, utterly inconsistent with his opinion in U.S. Terms Limits.

Enrique

The problem with Justice Stevens' premise is that judicial decisions are not independently falsifiable like theories in science are. That is, the justices themselves -- or a majority of them -- are the ones who self-referentially get to decide what constitutes a "correct" decision, so there is no intellectual honest way of deciding what constitutes an "Oops" moment independent of the courts' decisions themselves

Enrique Guerra-Pujol

The problem with Justice Stevens' premise is that judicial decisions are not independently falsifiable like theories in science are. That is, the justices themselves -- or a majority of them -- are the ones who self-referentially get to decide what constitutes a "correct" decision, so there is no intellectual honest way of deciding what constitutes an "Oops" moment independent of the courts' decisions themselves

The comments to this entry are closed.

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad