The way the Court has disregarded the Jurisprudence of Fuller, makes a very important point on the imperative of Jural Postulates by different Jurist. If Kant, Kelsen, Pound are disregarded similarly then the time will come for Jurisprudence to Justify its Normative Existence
https://twitter.com/MichaelPlaxton/status/1448117415628451840
The Constitutional Court Jurisprudence has firmly established to be guided by the "knowledge of Experience" or by "Authority of Precedent" as pure Formalism, What has been adjudicated, what has been Constitutionally Permissible and thus disregards the very nature of Jurisprudence
It explicitly remarks, after concerning with Dicey's and Fuller understanding of Rule of Law as "Refrences to the Rule of Law are of Little Assistance in elucidating the Content of any Constitutional Expression or Implications."
While it is true that Constitutional Decisions are not expression of a Jurist's Understanding of Law then whose Understanding the concept of Law shall represent as a Matter of Legal Knowledge. Thus the question must be asked "Whether there is truth in Study of Jurisprudence"?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
