The Dignity of Legislation and the Role of Judges

PAULA GAIDO

Buenos Aires

Jornada; XXXII Jornadas de la Asociación Argentina de Filosofía del Derecho ?Derecho, moral y política,? con la presencia de Jeremy Waldron; 2018

Asociación Argentina de Filosofía del Derecho

Jeremy Waldron argues for the idea of a self-governing republic. He claims that as a political community we cannot avoid disagreements regarding what we should do, and the majority of our representatives should have the final say in its determination. He devotes a big part of his scholarship to argue against strong judicial review of legislation ?at least in countries with strong political systems, where it is possible to affirm no one is excluded to have a say and impact in the decision taken by the majority. The Constitution almost always does not determine a resolution that is beyond reasonable dispute. Waldron states that it is the reading our representatives made of the Constitution the one that should prevail. Our representatives (typically, legislators) provide us with rules and standards to guide our action. It seems to be assumed by Waldron that those norms can settle the reasonable dispute about how we should act, according to the Constitution. I would like to explore the reach of some Waldron?s theses on legal interpretation and judicial adjudication of ordinary legislation, regarding the settlement of disputes that, according to him, ordinary legislation aspires to provide. Waldron argues judges should be committed to the value of integrity in their task of identifying and applying law to particular cases. I would like to explore the reach of this idea, given the dignity he wants us to note legislation has.