The purpose of this conference is a dialogue between scholars and judges about judging. Because judges have many opportunities to read what scholars think, and scholars don't very often have this kind of chance to hear judges reflect on their own experiences and perspectives, I expect the main benefit to go to us scholars. However, for many questions of jurisprudential interest, figuring out what relevance different judicial experiences might have is complicated, and extensive discussion may be necessary to learn what really matters.
I shall focus on a question that has lain at. the center of jurisprudential discussion in the 1ast few decades: the extent to which judicial decision is controlled by perceptions of the law as it exists rather than perceptions of the law as it should be. This inquiry is related, but only tangentially, to Frederick Schauer's helpful suggestions about how understandings about rules might affect the manner in which a judge performs his or her role in constitutional cases. I do not address the main aspects of Professor Schauer's paper more directly because I have little useful to add. However, one of my ambitions is to show that the relation between my inquiry arid Professor Schauer's is more complex than might appear at first glance.
Judges | Law
The Perceived Authority of Law in Judging Constitutional Cases,
U. Colo. L. Rev.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/3739