BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//132.216.98.100//NONSGML kigkonsult.se iCalcreator 2.20.4//
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:20250801T192318EDT-8442PpV7ju@132.216.98.100
DTSTAMP:20250801T232318Z
DESCRIPTION:Atelier de théorie du droit avec le professeur Andrei Marmor\, 
 USC Gould School of Law\, qui discutera d'un article sur lequel il travail
 le actuellement.\nAndrei Marmor dirige le USC Center for Law & Philosophy.
  Il est l'éditeur en chef du Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy\, une r
 evue dédiée à la philosophie morale\, politique et juridique.\nIl est l'au
 teur de Interpretation and Legal Theory (Oxford University Press\, 1992\; 
 Hart Publishing\, 2005)\; Positive Law & Objective Values (Oxford Universi
 ty Press 2001)\; Law in the Age of Pluralism (Oxford University Press\, 20
 07)\;  Social Conventions (Princeton University Press\, 2009)\, Philosophy
  of Law (Princeton\, 2011)\; et de nombreux articles scientifiques.\nExtra
 it\n(En anglais seulement) 'Observers of U.S. constitutional cases would h
 ave to admit that most of the important constitutional decisions of the Su
 preme Court are reached on (so called) ideological grounds. The justices’ 
 moral\, political\, sometimes even religious\, convictions tend to influen
 ce\, not to say determine\, the outcome of their decisions on constitution
 al matters\, though\, of course\, rarely the public reasons given for them
 . The reasons are always cast in legal terms and phrased as legalistically
  as possible. But when we hear the outcome of constitutional cases\, we ar
 e very rarely surprised. To the extent that an upcoming decision is not en
 tirely predictable\, the uncertainty is due to one swing vote – at most tw
 o – on the Court. I am not suggesting that this is always the case. Some d
 ecisions on constitutional matters are not fraught with overt moral\, poli
 tical or religious issues\, and sometimes it is difficult to trace the jus
 tices’ reasons to any particular ideological convictions. But most of them
  are. [...]\nMy argument in this paper is not meant to provide an overall 
 assessment of the arguments for and against constitutional judicial review
 . It is only meant to suggest that the counter-majoritarian rationale of C
 JR is seriously wanting. The current system of CJR is fraught with arbitra
 ry elements\, to an extent that makes the system only marginally better\, 
 if at all\, compared with an overtly and blatantly randomized system.'\n
DTSTART:20150320T143000Z
DTEND:20150320T160000Z
LOCATION:Institute for Health and Social Policy seminar room \, Charles Mer
 edith House\, CA\, QC\, Montreal\, H3A 1A3\, 1130 avenue des Pins Ouest
SUMMARY:Atelier de théorie du droit: Randomized Judicial Review
URL:/law/fr/channels/event/atelier-de-theorie-du-droit
 -randomized-judicial-review-243384
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR