How Judges Think pdf epub mobi txt 电子书下载 2025

☆☆☆☆☆

理查德.波斯纳，先后以最优生和年级第一名毕业于耶鲁大学英文系（1959）和哈佛大学法学院（1962）。曾任美国联邦最高法院大法官助理、联邦政府律师、斯坦福大学法学院副教授（1968）、芝加哥大学法学院教授（1969）和讲座教授。1981年出任美国联邦第七巡回区上诉法院法官至今（1993～2000年任首席法官），同时担任芝加哥大学法学院高级讲师。

出版者:Harvard University Press

作者:Richard Posner

出品人:

页数:400

译者:

出版时间:2008-04-30

价格:USD 29.95

装帧:Hardcover

isbn号码:9780674028203

丛书系列:

图书标签:

法律
法学
英文
经典
美国
制度

下载链接在页面底部

facebook linkedin mastodon messenger pinterest reddit telegram twitter viber vkontakte whatsapp 复制链接

想要找书就要到图书目录大全

book.wenda123.org

立刻按 ctrl+D收藏本页

你会得到大惊喜!!

A distinguished and experienced appellate court judge, Richard A. Posner offers in this new book a unique and, to orthodox legal thinkers, a startling perspective on how judges and justices decide cases. When conventional legal materials enable judges to ascertain the true facts of a case and apply clear pre-existing legal rules to them, Posner argues, they do so straightforwardly; that is the domain of legalist reasoning. However, in non-routine cases, the conventional materials run out and judges are on their own, navigating uncharted seas with equipment consisting of experience, emotions, and often unconscious beliefs. In doing so, they take on a legislative role, though one that is confined by internal and external constraints, such as professional ethics, opinions of respected colleagues, and limitations imposed by other branches of government on freewheeling judicial discretion.Occasional legislators, judges are motivated by political considerations in a broad and sometimes a narrow sense of that term. In that open area, most American judges are legal pragmatists. Legal pragmatism is forward-looking and policy-based. It focuses on the consequences of a decision in both the short and the long term, rather than on its antecedent logic. Legal pragmatism so understood is really just a form of ordinary practical reasoning, rather than some special kind of legal reasoning.Supreme Court justices are uniquely free from the constraints on ordinary judges and uniquely tempted to engage in legislative forms of adjudication. More than any other court, the Supreme Court is best understood as a political court.