Judging in Good Faith [Paperback]

This book offers an original theory of adjudication focused on the ethics of judging in courts of law.Offering an original theory of adjudication based on the ethics of judging in courts of law, this book presents two main theses to oppose conservative theories restricting the scope of adjudication as well as leftist critical theories liberating judges from the rule of law.Offering an original theory of adjudication based on the ethics of judging in courts of law, this book presents two main theses to oppose conservative theories restricting the scope of adjudication as well as leftist critical theories liberating judges from the rule of law.This book offers an original theory of adjudication focused on the ethics of judging in courts of law. It offers two main theses. The good faith thesis defends the possibility of lawful judicial decisions even when judges have discretion. The permissible discretion thesis defends the compatibility of judicial discretion and legal indeterminacy with the legitimacy of adjudication in a constitutional democracy. Together, these two theses oppose both conservative theories that would restrict the scope of adjudication unduly and leftist critical theories that would liberate judges from the rule of law.Part I: The Good Faith Thesis: 1. Stubborn indeterminacy; 2. The good faith thesis; 3. An illustrative case and first objections; Part II. The Permissible Discretion Thesis: 4. Science and skepticism. 5. Critical claims; 6. Philosophies of law; Part III. Law, Morals and Politics: 7. Legal and moral duties; 8. The politics of good faith; Index. Public law scholars and political theorists interested in jurisprudence will find this book rewarding on at least three counts--the originality of its substantive contribution respecting a central and much-debated jurisprudential issue, the lucidity of its argumentation, and its careful reckoning with much of the relevant literature. The first count indicates why law-and-political-science schlƒ|