Peer Disagreement in Law
2021. 6 Tab., 13 Abb.; 125 S.
Erhältlich als
59,90 €
ISBN 978-3-428-15928-4
sofort lieferbar
59,90 €
ISBN 978-3-428-55928-2
sofort lieferbar
Preis für Bibliotheken: 80,00 € [?]


Philosophers have been puzzled for quite some time by the fact that intelligent and generally reasonable individuals who are equally well-informed and familiar with the same bodies of evidence still disagree with one another. Legal theorists wonder why this is puzzling for philosophers in the first place as disagreement is the very foundation of their work. This book, placed at the intersection of philosophical epistemology and jurisprudence, deals with the theoretical challenges that disagreements between judges create. The philosophical debate is applied to German and American legal disputes. How can such disagreements be integrated into the general philosophical debate on »peer disagreement« and into the legal theory of judicial decisionmaking? How should one deal with such disagreements under the existing legal framework but also in terms of legal policy?


I. Introduction
Peer Disagreement in Law – Deep Disagreements – Chapter Summary – Limitations
II. Supreme Court: Hobby Lobby
The Battle for Universal Health Care – The Hobby Lobby Case – The Disagreements Involved in the Hobby Lobby Case – The Disagreements in Detail – Overview of the Sources of Disagreement – Analysis Disagreements – The Contraception Mandate Debate: Deep Disagreements
III. Bundesverfassungsgericht: Incest
Incest and the Criminal Law – The Incest Case – The Disagreements Involved in Incest – Disagreements in Detail – Overview Sources of Disagreement – Analysis Disagreements – The Incest Debate: Deep Disagreements
IV. Disagreeing Justices
Peer Disagreement and Disagreeing Justices – Ideology and Disagreeing Justices – Conclusion
V. Dealing with Disagreement
Legal Practice – Legal Policy – Legal Disagreement and Philosophy


Ihr Warenkorb ist leer.