Event Title
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife: Standing as a Judicially Imposed Limit on Legislative Power
Location
Duke Law School
Start Date
21-1-1993 10:30 AM
End Date
21-1-1993 12:00 PM
Description
The author finds little to quarrel with in Dean Nichol's critique of Justice Scalia's opinion in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. He bases his criticisms of the opinion on somewhat different grounds. The author is sympathetic to one version of what Dean Nichol calls Justice Scalia's "broader agenda" -- reducing the role of the judiciary in making government policy. That agenda antedates Justice Scalia's appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court; it has been ongoing since 1972. Many of its central elements have garnered support from every Justice who has served during the last two decades. However, Justice Scalia's opinion in Defenders cannot be characterized accurately as part of that agenda. As Dean Nichol recognizes, it seems to be instead the first step in implementing a quite different agenda - reducing the permissible role of Congress in government policymaking. This is the most basic of several criticisms the author has of the opinion. He makes three main points in this Comment.
Related Paper
Richard J. Pierce Jr., Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife: Standing as a Judicially Imposed Limit on Legislative Power, 42 Duke Law Journal 1170-1201 (1993)
Available at: http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/dlj/vol42/iss6/2Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife: Standing as a Judicially Imposed Limit on Legislative Power
Duke Law School
The author finds little to quarrel with in Dean Nichol's critique of Justice Scalia's opinion in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife. He bases his criticisms of the opinion on somewhat different grounds. The author is sympathetic to one version of what Dean Nichol calls Justice Scalia's "broader agenda" -- reducing the role of the judiciary in making government policy. That agenda antedates Justice Scalia's appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court; it has been ongoing since 1972. Many of its central elements have garnered support from every Justice who has served during the last two decades. However, Justice Scalia's opinion in Defenders cannot be characterized accurately as part of that agenda. As Dean Nichol recognizes, it seems to be instead the first step in implementing a quite different agenda - reducing the permissible role of Congress in government policymaking. This is the most basic of several criticisms the author has of the opinion. He makes three main points in this Comment.
Comments
This event was not recorded.