Abstract
Since Herbert Wechsler's famous article, the topic of has played central stage in many debates about judicial review specifically and constitutional law generally. On closer inspection, however, it turns out that the heading of neutrality encompasses not one but four different debates. One is about principled adjudication, another is about decision according to rules, a third is about substantive neutrality, and the fourth is about the desirability (or not) of designing the institutions of judicial review without regard to likely substantive outcomes and without regard to the likely staffing of those institutions. This paper distinguishes these four conceptions of and analyzes each of them.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
