Ronald Dworkin Liberalism

Ronald Dworkin was a liberalist who believed that there was a correct judicial decision in each case, which is based on principle, not a literalist interpretation of the law. This idea is in direct contradiction to the formalist viewpoint offered by Hart; consequently, Dworkin was focused on the application of the law with the goal of ensuring that a legislatively passed law was indeed a good law. He was also interested in finding the rights of the parties of interest. This is more of a qualitative methodological approach which accounts for individual liberties that a utilitarian would likely ignore in favor of the greater “pleasure” of the community. Dworkin would have made an inquiry in each instance, “Does the application of mandatory minimum …show more content…
The inequitable enforcement of the Act (varied drug sentencing guidelines), in combination with its inflexible judicial discretion (mandatory sentencing) stands in direct opposition to the tenets of fairness and individual liberties. He would have likely approved of the Kimbrough v. United States decision that allowed judicial discretion because it was based on principle (individual liberty, circumstances, etc.). Dworkin seemed to comprehend that not every case is the same; thus, a formalist application of the law may be ill-suited toward the pursuit of justice. He instead endorsed the utilization of a right and fair process to arrive at an appropriate judgment; consequently, Ronald Dworkin would have likely opposed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of …show more content…
His judicial philosophy leaves room for components of feminist theory, whereas I do not find the opposite to be true. I recognize the legitimacy of the law, but like Dworkin, I appreciate that all law should not necessarily be universally applied. A judge must have the discretion to utilize the principles of fairness to arrive at a just decision. In doing so he/she can take into account the existing structures that disadvantage certain groups of people. The utilitarian viewpoint is skewed toward the status quo. Hart’s viewpoint leaves little room from for justice, which should be at the heart of judicial enforcement. The critical theorist’s viewpoint, while valid, offers few legal remedies for practical application. Good laws incorporate the sociological knowledge of the feminist movement, and it weighs the needs of communities-at-large while utilizing the principles of individual justice. Like Dworkin, I find that the greatest “good” in law comes from the utilization of liberalism through the recognition of a person’s