Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System 1st Edition

Most of the other reviewers stated the reasons why this is an important book; Tara Smith lays the foundation of what objective laws should be. She grounds her reasoning in the nature of human beings and their requirements of the laws passed by governments. Basically, all laws should protect real individual rights and she shows how judicial review is a necessary component to ensure just laws.There is one point however, that I think needs clarification. She opposes religious exemptions to laws since it would undermine the rule of law. Since in her view all laws should be about protecting rights, or implementing procedures to protect rights, any exemptions would be near anarchic. However, in the context of dealing with non-objective laws that infringe on rights, a religious exemption can be viewed as a partial repeal. It can be used tactically as a means of reducing the infringement of rights, and can be justified IN THAT CONTEXT.For example, as of this writing, the Trump administration has granted religious exemptions to a religious adoption service in South Carolina. Regardless if one agrees or not with this religious view, this exemption respects the freedom and property rights of this organization against one of the Obama administrations more odious anti-discrimination regulations. In this context religious exemptions can be justified.All in all, this is a worthwhile addition for anyone's law or philosophy library.

Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System is a patiently and carefully reasoned analysis of the kind of legal system we ought to have. Moreover, in respect to those who say that cultural differences call for different types of governments and legal systems, her analysis shows why there is an underlying set of principles that every country should adhere to, if their aim is to secure the rights of their citizens, and not to enable rule by tyranny.Having established with great thoroughness what a legal system does for us, what objectivity consists of, and then what objectivity is in the legal sense, she turns to a discussion of the various approaches to legal review employed and advocated today. It is wonderful to see here an approach similar to Aristotle’s, who always reviewed his predecessors’ arguments, laying bare their essentials, revealing what was wrong with each argument before turning to the presentation of his own position. This approach shows enormous intellectual respect for other people’s views, and for the reader.Her subject is not the simplest one in the world, neither is it the most complex. The reader must work through each issue with her to see the many paths that each issue can take. But the reader’s patience, along with Dr. Smith’s patient presentation, will repay him in spades.The only shortcoming I found in the book is this: I would have liked to see one or perhaps several real life examples of the kinds of judicial reasoning she advocates. It is true that she gives many specific instances of particular legal issues, and she refers to many court decisions that are pertinent to those specific issues. But an extended legal analysis of a particular case, by a sitting judge, that displays objective legal analysis would, I think, be very helpful.She does mention one judge’s presentation in one case that she recommends reading in its entirety: Mr. Justice Sutherland in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish. It is possible that, though she recommends reading the entire dissent, she would not find every sentence in it exemplifying objective legal analysis. But certainly many of its points are entirely consistent with Dr. Smith’s approach. And it would be valuable to see her point out which elements of his dissent she thinks exemplify objectivity and which do not. I am sure that she could have found other cases too that would serve as exemplars of the objective analysis she so strongly urges on us. Placing those in an appendix would be valuable.Regardless, this is a book that will provide tremendous intellectual grounding for a proper approach to legal review.

Tara Smith clearly articulates her ideal of judicial review in an objective system. She demonstrates this by starting at the roots, describing what she means by objective and discussing common incorrect interpretations of the concept. She goes on to present the current five primary legal analysis theories and shows why she believes each one is incorrect. This section alone is very educational and well worth the reading of the book. This subject is very reasoned based and relevant to society.She concludes by laying out her system, which is a logical progression of the beginning of middle of the book. As usual, all of her ideas are well thought out and she lucidly explains all of her reasonings that lead to her beliefs. This is the sort of discussion that is needed to debate ideas, bringing out the best ones and moving society forwards.HIghly recommend.