Despre puterea judecatoreasca-o masa rotunda

Pentru ca in ultimul an, gratie "revoltei magistratilor" am vazut tot felul de discutii despre juzi,ma gindesc ca e bine sa stim unde stam,teoretic vorbind in asemenea subiecte, astfel ca imi permit sa semnalez vol 7, no 1 (Ianuarie 2009) al International Journal of Constitutional Law care publica o masa rotunda pe marginea a ceea ce noi numim cumva impropriu "controlulul constitutionalitatii legilor", dar mai precis are de a face cu capacitatea puterii judecatorestii de a tine in "check si desigur in balance" celelalte puteri.

Iata cuvintul inainte al lui Norman Dorsen and Michel Rosenfeld:

Symposium Roundtable: An exchange with Jeremy Waldron


Jeremy Waldron is a principal voice in the American debate over the legitimacy of judicial review of legislation, taking a principled position in opposition to the practice. As part of I•CON's ongoing effort to foster exchanges of views among leading constitutionalists worldwide, we invited him to expound on the thesis whereby he questions whether judges are the best arbiters of moral issues about rights. We have called on leading legal theorists from three countries—David Dyzenhaus (Canada), Wojciech Sadurski (Poland), and Olivier Beaud (France)—to react to Professor Waldron's views, and have given Professor Waldron the opportunity to respond to their comments.

si in continuare, lucrarile publicate:

Jeremy Waldron:Judges as moral reasoners

Wojciech Sadurski:Rights and moral reasoning: An unstated assumption—A comment on Jeremy Waldron's 'Judges as moral reasoners'

David Dyzenhaus:Are legislatures good at morality? Or better at it than the courts?

Olivier Beaud:Reframing a debate among Americans: Contextualizing a moral philosophy of law

Jeremy Waldron: Refining the question about judges' moral capacity

...ca intotdeauna am o copie pentru cei interesati de subiect,care nu au acces institutional la revista.