Abstract
The study of judicial politics has long been characterized by disputes between normative jurisprudence and an empirically oriented political jurisprudence. Normative jurisprudence examines the principles and values embodied in the courts' constitutional and statutory decisions and consists of traditional public law and critical legal studies, which are both skeptical of the positivist bent of behavioral political science.1 Yet, public law and critical legal studies exhibit important differences in their understanding of the legal doctrines that courts formulate to justify their decisions. While public law treats legal doctrines as a form of normative political philosophy, critical legal studies conceptualize them as political ideology that rationalizes unequal power relations.
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.
