法庭意见、论据与论证——析美国最高法院对劳伦斯案的裁决

发布时间：2018-04-23 22:30

本文选题：法律论证 + 法律决定　；参考：《环球法律评论》2014年04期

【摘要】：美国联邦最高法院就劳伦斯案给出了三份观点截然分立的法官意见。通过分析三份意见的论证发现,不论是旁征博引的论据,还是形态各异的论证进路,都不是大法官们产生意见分歧的原因,毋宁是他们发生分歧的后果。大法官们运用的论据实质只是有待证成的意见,其采用的论证进路不只是为了证成结论,也是为了表明他们的法律理念。就劳伦斯案而言,真正影响大法官判断的是他们对于宪法解释原则、遵循先例原则、司法与民主的关系以及法律与道德的关系等基本问题的不同看法。这些基本法律理念既是特定判决的成因,也有可能作为理由出现在判决书中。在这一意义上,尽管法律论证并不必然反映判决的真实成因,但它对于法律决定的形成仍有重要影响。
[Abstract]:The Supreme Court of the United States gave three separate opinions in Lawrence's case. By analyzing the argument of three opinions, it is found that neither the argument of circumvention nor the way of argument of different forms is the reason for the difference of opinion among the justices, rather than the consequence of their differences. The arguments used by the justices are in essence only opinions to be proved, and the way of argument adopted is not only to prove the conclusion, but also to demonstrate their legal ideas. As far as Lawrence case is concerned, what really affects the judges' judgment is their different views on the basic issues such as the principle of constitutional interpretation, the principle of following precedent, the relationship between judicature and democracy, and the relationship between law and morality. These basic legal concepts are not only the cause of a particular judgment, but also may appear in the judgment as a reason. In this sense, although the legal argument does not necessarily reflect the true cause of the judgment, it still has an important impact on the formation of the legal decision.
【作者单位】：对外经济贸易大学法学院;
【基金】：2013年度北京市青年英才计划(项目号为YETP0905)的支持
【分类号】：D971.2

【参考文献】