文档类型
文章
出版日期
12-1-2007
文摘
进化的最高法院的补救法学企图追求的最终司法措施适当的救济,成为一个常态的补救比例。法院对惩罚性赔偿的决定自2000年起,禁令,和补救立法授权制定的一个严格的平衡和精确测量民事救济。这些案件往往低于一般利益的雷达或被忽视了的治疗意义。然而,这些案例演示,有点令人惊讶的是,最高法院的方式进入竞技场的普通法救济出人意料地改变制定补救措施的基本原则。本文揭露和批判的程度比例占主导地位的补救决策在新世纪美国最高法院。“比例”正迅速成为一个普遍的理性标准在国际公法上下文。事实上,“[t]他概念得到了更加细化和评价以外的美国。“比例是避免过剩的一般法律原则和“审查符合法律的任何公共自由行动。“这是一个“标准测量适当的自由裁量行为的目的和手段之间的关系。“国际法学家使用比例来评估政府侵入的程度最重要的公民的个人权利。然而,美国法律学者并没有接受这个新的测试,因为它的出现”听起来陌生,危险的保护公民权利,和说明性的保守主义的法院。“这些担忧似乎有根有据的,最高法院指派的比例作为自己的标准来保护政府和企业利益与个人原告。 The article begins by taking a positivist view to describe how the Court has utilized proportionality in its remedial decisions. It first explains the Court’s theory of remedial essentialism, which forms the foundation for the rule of remedial proportionality. The theory of remedial essentialism formalistically separates the remedy from the right, and it is this binary concept that establishes the premise of balance inherent in proportionality. This notion of balance or equilibrium draws on theories from Aristotle and law and economics mandating a precise remedial balance as a proxy for justice. Practically speaking, the rule of proportionality engages the court in a type of “Three Bears” analysis under which it evaluates whether the remedy is too big, too small, or just right. The article synthesizes the most recent Supreme Court cases on remedies to flesh out the principles of proportionality driving the Court’s decisions. These remedial decisions emanate from a wide variety of factual contexts, including abortion, water rights, insurance, patents, and tribal immunity. Yet, the decisions coalesce in transsubstantive fashion around the assumed foundational truth of remedial proportionality as the ultimate measure of civil justice. After tracing the development of strict proportionality in the Supreme Court, the article then engages in a normative analysis to evaluate whether proportionality should in fact be the guiding principle of remedies law. It begins with the identification of the Court’s justifications for the rule. The Court seems to value proportionality for its rationality and objectivity, judicial restraint and minimalism, and reciprocal response. However, the article reveals these claims of rationality, restraint, and reciprocity as myths. Proportionality is not an objective standard. Continued reliance upon these myths creates significant legal dangers by obscuring the subjective framing issues inherent in a rule of comparison and unduly deferring to the interests of the wrongdoers. When the rule of proportionality is deconstructed, it becomes apparent that proportionality is not a rule of restraint, but rather one of activism. The article ultimately rejects the continued use of remedial proportionality and its fostering of judicial activism by the highest Court. Instead, it recommends a return to the traditional judicial review of remedies deferring to the initial factfinders in each case.
出版物标题
黑斯廷斯法律期刊
建议引用
特蕾西·a·托马斯,比例和最高法院的司法补救措施,59黑斯廷斯法律期刊》(2007)。