WHY MUST INFERIOR COURTS OBEY SUPERIOR COURT PRECEDENTS
WHY MUST INFERIOR COURTS OBEY SUPERIOR COURT PRECEDENTS
复制标题
DOI：
10.2307/1229094
复制
发表时间：
1994-04-01
影响因子：
4.9
通讯作者：
CAMINKER, EH
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
CAMINKER, EH
等级先例原则在司法实践和意识中是如此根深蒂固，以至于它的主导地位很少受到质疑，而且，矛盾的是，它的有效性从未得到证明。为了解决这一悖论，卡明克教授对该原则的宪法和理性主义理由进行了全面的调查，概述并评估了支持下级法院不同程度自治的各种论点。他的结论是，虽然等级先例的原则最终是站得住脚的，但它并不像该原则的力量所暗示的那样明显站得住脚。此外，没有一个单一的理由可以证明各级司法机构的做法是正当的。一个有说服力的解释必须依赖于宪法和审慎论证的结合。最后，卡明克教授认为，他对等级判例基础的解释有助于解决当前宪法和法理学中的争议，包括如果国会剥夺了最高法院对某些案件的上诉管辖权，现有的最高法院判决是否仍将约束下级联邦或州法院，以及破产法官是否必须遵守联邦地区法院的判例。
The doctrine of hierarchical precedent is so deeply ingrained in judicial practice and consciousness that its dominance has rarely been questioned, and, paradoxically, its validity has never been justified. In addressing that paradox, Professor Caminker undertakes a comprehensive inquiry into the constitutional and rationalist justifications for the doctrine, outlining and assessing the various arguments supporting differing degrees of autonomy for the lower courts. He concludes that while the doctrine of hierarchical precedent is ultimately defensible, it is not as obviously defensible as the doctrine's strength would suggest. Further, no one single rationale justifies the practice for all levels of the judiciary. A persuasive account must rely on a combination of constitutional and prudential arguments. Finally, Professor Caminker argues that his account of the underpinnings of hierarchical precedent helps resolve current controversies in constitutional law and jurisprudence, including whether existing Supreme Court decisions would still bind inferior federal or state courts if Congress stripped the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over some cases, and whether bankruptcy judges must obey federal district court precedents.