Advisory AdjudicationExpressO (2011)
Abstract"Advisory Adjudication" uses the recent Supreme Court decision in Camreta v. Greene as a takeoff point to discuss the way in which inconsistent demands make our conception of judicial review incoherent. In Camreta, the Supreme Court paradoxically issued an advisory opinion in the process of holding that it did not have jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions. I argue that this illustrates the manner in which we want the Supreme Court to act as a prospective policymaking body in a tricameral legislative process, while simultaneously insisting that the Court pretend merely to be engaged in the process of retrospective dispute-resolution. I think that this duality ultimately enables us to treat each other with more self-interested harshness, and less empathy, than we would if forced to confront our own naked policy preferences without the buffer of judicial review.
Publication DateSeptember 10, 2011
Citation InformationGirardeau A Spann. "Advisory Adjudication" ExpressO (2011)
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/girardeau_spann/2/