"[The Rule of Law]" in the US Supreme Court: The elephant in the court room?

Paul Burgess

Research output: Contribution to journalComment/debatepeer-review

Abstract

In this brief note I question, in part, the justification for thinking that the US Supreme Court should – in a recent Opinion – consider the Rule of Law. I further consider whether it did in fact fail to do so. I take an introspective approach to this question and explore the validity of us – Rule of Law-people – taking a Rule of Law-centric view of the world. In this respect, I do not forensically examine the Court’s opinion nor do I question its general accuracy or acceptability. Instead, I consider the omission of any mention of the Rule of Law in terms of both the Court’s presentation of an argument and our consideration – as readers of a journal with a specific Rule of Law-centric focus – of the same. I conclude that, whilst it is possible to identify Rule of Law related issues almost anywhere, and it may be problematic to seek to do so in every instance, there are some places where it is appropriate to do so. The Court’s Opinion was one such place.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages8
JournalHague Journal on the Rule of Law
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 28 Jul 2016

Keywords

  • Rule of Law
  • Explicit reference
  • US Supreme Court
  • Fuller’s desiderata
  • Bank Markazi v Peterson

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '"[The Rule of Law]" in the US Supreme Court: The elephant in the court room?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this