Jurisprudence
-
Functional explanations in positive (descriptive) legal theory
In the most recent installment of his very useful Legal Theory Lexicon, this one on functional explanations, Larry Solum (Georgetown) concludes by noting: Let me conclude with a very short diatribe. Legal theorists need a basic understanding of positive legal theory. (I hope this is obvious to everyone!) That means that legal academics should, at…
-
Religious exemptions to the law
A short opinion piece at the new Al Jazeera America site, drawing on some themes from my book.
-
Speaking of the law of religious liberty…
…I was pleasantly surprised to have my work noted by an Elder of the Mormon Church. I'm glad we share "half a loaf" as he puts it!
-
Responsibility, Guilt, Punishment
For those who are interested: I offer an interpretation of Nietzsche’s striking idea of “the innocence of becoming” (die Unschuld des Werdens), and offer a partial defense of its import, namely, that no one is ever morally responsible or guilty for what they do and that the so-called “reactive attitudes” are always misplaced. I focus…
-
A public lecture on toleration in Newport…
…this Thursday, for any readers in the area who might be interested.
-
Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Law, volume 2…
…is now out, with new essays by Stephen Perry, Barbara Baum Levenbook, Matthew Kramer, Bruno Celano, Michael Giudice, R.A. Duff, C.L. Ten, Hanoch Sheinman, and Luis Duarte D'Almeida. The volumes covers topics in general jurisprudence, as well as the philosophy of criminal law, international law, and contracts, among other topics. Perry's important paper has already…
-
“The Methodology of Legal Philosophy”
The essentially final (and citable) version of this paper (co-authored with Alex Langlinais) is now on-line.
-
Why Legal Positivism (Again)?
I gave a very short talk on this topic at the AALS a few years ago, but this new draft paper is a much expanded and more systematic discussion, given as a keynote address in August for the annual meeting of the Australasian Society of Legal Philosophy in Sydney. I hope it will interest some…
-
Presumption of innocence should not be a Bayesian prior
Interesting analysis, as always, from philosopher Larry Laudan (Texas & UNAM).
-
“Beyond Blame”…
…at the Boston Review. A lead essay by law professor Barbara Fried (Stanford), with responses by legal scholars, philosophers, and psychologists, including Adriaan Lanni (Harvard), Christine Korsgaard and T.M. Scanlon (both Harvard), Paul Bloom (Yale), Gideon Rosen (Princeton), and yours truly, among others.
-
Blast from the past: Leiter v. Shapiro on “theoretical disagreements”
Bloggingheads TV, 2008, but at a new URL now.
-
A bare majority of the super-legislature known as the Supreme Court votes to repeal a crucial part of the Voting Rights Act…
…that the actual legislature evaluated and extended in 2006. They do so based on the finding of five members of the super-legislature that the portion of the Act at issue is no longer necessary, contrary to the view, apparently, of the actual legislature seven years earlier. And a minority of scholars are still not legal…
-
“Why Tolerate Religion?” in DC Tomorrow
I look forward to meeting a number of longtime readers there.
-
First Things (magazine) on “Why Tolerate Religion?”
First Things is a conservative Catholic intellectual magazine. An unsigned editorial in the April 2013 issue opines that, A recent book by…Brian Leiter outlines what may well become the theoretical consensus used to reinterpret the First Amendment. "There is no principled reason," he writes in Why Tolerate Religion?, "for legal or constitutional regimes to single out…
Sorry, in the *20* years since it was published.