TY - JOUR
T1 - Appealing to the Brooding Spirit of the Law: Good and Evil in Landmark Judicial Dissents
T2 - Good and Evil in Landmark Judicial Dissents
AU - Langford, Catherine
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2008 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.
PY - 2008
Y1 - 2008
N2 - An examination of Harlan's Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Holmes's Lochner v. New York (1905), Brandeis's Olmstead v. United States (1928), Murphy's Korematsu v. United States (1944), and Blackmun's Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) dissents demonstrates the ways in which good and evil are used in dissenting opinions. The Constitution is constructed as good and the authority by which the citizens are protected. The dissents frame constitutional interpretation, the government, and statutory law as evil. The use of these arguments in judicial dissents shifts the legal conflict from a difference of acceptable legal interpretation or public policy into a metaphysical battle between good and evil.
AB - An examination of Harlan's Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Holmes's Lochner v. New York (1905), Brandeis's Olmstead v. United States (1928), Murphy's Korematsu v. United States (1944), and Blackmun's Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) dissents demonstrates the ways in which good and evil are used in dissenting opinions. The Constitution is constructed as good and the authority by which the citizens are protected. The dissents frame constitutional interpretation, the government, and statutory law as evil. The use of these arguments in judicial dissents shifts the legal conflict from a difference of acceptable legal interpretation or public policy into a metaphysical battle between good and evil.
KW - constitutional interpretation
KW - good and evil
KW - government
KW - judicial dissent
KW - statutory law
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84878855669&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/00028533.2008.11821682
DO - 10.1080/00028533.2008.11821682
M3 - Article
VL - 44
SP - 119
EP - 129
JO - Argumentation and Advocacy
JF - Argumentation and Advocacy
IS - 3
ER -