Proceduralism and the epistemic dilemma of Supreme Courts

References

• Ackerman, B. 2014. We the People – Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, E. 2006. “The Epistemology of Democracy.” Episteme 3 (1–2): 8–22.10.3366/epi.2006.3.1-2.8
   Google Scholar
• Bellamy, R. 1999. Liberalism and Pluralism: Toward a Politics of Compromise. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bellamy, R. 2007. Political Constitutionalism: A Republican Defence of the Constitutionality of Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511490187
   Google Scholar
• Bickel, A. M. 1986. The Least Dangerous Branch: The Supreme Court and the Bar of Politics. Yale: Yale University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bohman, J. 1996. Public Deliberation: Pluralism, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bohman, J. 2006. “Deliberative Democracy and the Epistemic Benefits of Diversity.” Episteme 3 (3): 175–191.10.3366/epi.2006.3.3.175
   Google Scholar
• Brettschneider, C. 2007. Democratic Rights and the Substance of Self-government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brettschneider, C. 2011. “Judicial Review and Democratic Authority: Absolute V. Balancing Conceptions.” Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy (Part of Symposium on T. Christiano’s the Constitution of Equality) 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Brettschneider, C., and T. Christiano. 2009. “Book Review Exchange.” The Journal of Politics 71 (4): 1593–1594.10.1017/S0022381609990284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter, I. 2011. “Respect and the Basis of Equality.” Ethics 121 (3): 538–571.10.1086/658897
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christiano, T. 2008. The Constitution of Equality: Democratic Authority and Its Limits. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198297475.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Christiano, T. 2011. “Reply to Critics of the Constitution of Equality.” Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy (Part of Symposium on T. Christiano’s the Constitution of Equality) 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Dahl, R. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dworkin, R. 2011. Justice for Hedgehogs. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ebeling, M. 2017. “Is Moral Deference Reasonable Acceptable?” Social Epistemology 31 (3): 296–309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eisgruber, C. L. 2001. Constitutional Self-government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Elga, A. 2007. “Reflection and Disagreement.” Noûs 41 (3): 478–502.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enoch, D. 2009. “How is Moral Disagreement a Problem for Realism?” The Journal of Ethics 13 (1): 15–50.10.1007/s10892-008-9041-z
   Google Scholar
• Estlund, D. 2008. Democratic Authority. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrajoli, L. 2011. “The Normative Paradigm of Constitutional Democracy.” Res Publica 17: 355–367.10.1007/s11158-011-9169-8
   Google Scholar
• Follesdal, A. 2017. “Tracking Justice Democratically.” Social Epistemology. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2017.1317869
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fricker, M. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198237907.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Gutting, G. 1982. Religious Belief and Religious Skepticism. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contribution to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. Translated and edited by W. Rehg. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hamilton, A., J. Jay, and J. Madison. (1787) 2009. The Federalist Papers. New York: Palgrave MAcMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, T. 2010. “Peer Disagreement and Higher Order Evidence.” In Disagreement, edited by R. Feldman and T. A. Warfield, 111–174. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226078.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, H. 2013. Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, H. Forthcoming. “Beyond the Fact of Disagreement? The Epistemic Turn in Deliberative Democracy.” Social Epistemology 31 (3): 277–295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lever, A. 2009. “Democracy and Judicial Review: Are they Really Incompatible?” Perspectives on Politics 7 (4): 805–822.10.1017/S1537592709991812
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leydet, D. 2015. “Partisan Legislatures and Democratic Deliberation.” Journal of Political Philosophy 23 (3): 235–260.10.1111/jopp.2015.23.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• List, C., and R. Goodin. 2001. “Epistemic Democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem.” Journal of Political Philosophy 9 (3): 277–306.10.1111/jopp.2001.9.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackie, G. 2011. “The Values of Democratic Proceduralism.” Irish Political Studies 26 (4): 439–453.10.1080/07907184.2011.619730
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manin, B. 2011. “Comment promouvoir la délibération démocratique?” Raisons politiques 42: 83–113.10.3917/rai.042.0083
   Google Scholar
• Martì, J. L. 2006. “The Epistemic Conception of Deliberative Democracy Defended. Reasons, Rightness and Equal Political Liberty.” In Deliberative Democracy and Its Discontents, edited by S. Besson and J. L. Martí, 27–56. Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Mill, J. S. (1859) 1977. “Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform.” In The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, edited by J. M. Robson, 311–340. Toronto, London: University of Toronto Press, Routledge & Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Mouffe, C. 2000. The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Pacelle, R. L. 2002. The Role of Supreme Court in American Politics: The Least Dangerous Branch? Cambridge, MA: Westview Press, Perseus Group Books.
   Google Scholar
• Peter, F. 2008. “Pure Epistemic Proceduralism.” Episteme 5 (1): 33–55.10.3366/E1742360008000221
   Google Scholar
• Peter, F. 2013a. “The Procedural Epistemic Value of Deliberation.” Synthese 190: 1253–1266.10.1007/s11229-012-0119-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peter, F. 2013b. “Epistemic Foundations of Political Liberalism.” Journal of Moral Philosophy 10 (5): 598–620.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Riker, W. H. 1982. Liberalism against Populism. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.
   Google Scholar
• Saffon, M. P., and N. Urbinati. 2013. “Procedural Democracy, the Bulwark of Equal Liberty.” Political Theory 20 (10): 1–41.
   Google Scholar
• Sosa, E. 2010. “The Epistemology of Disagreement.” In Social Epistemology, edited by A. Haddock, A. Millar, and D. Pritchard, 278–297. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199577477.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Stein, A. 2008. “On the Epistemic Authority of Courts.” Episteme 5 (3): 402–410.10.3366/E1742360008000488
   Google Scholar
• Tully, J. 2004. “Recognition and Dialogue: The Emergence of a New Field.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 7 (3): 84–106.10.1080/1369823042000269401
   Google Scholar
• Tushnet, M. 1999. Taking the Constitution Away from the Courts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waldron, J. 1999. Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198262138.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Waldron, J. 2006. “The Core of the Case against Judicial Review.” The Yale Law Journal 115 (6): 1346–1406.10.2307/20455656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar