Reasonableness, proportionality and general grounds of judicial review: a response
This is a response to an article written by Timothy Endicott, the principal thesis of which is that proportionality cannot and should not be a general ground of review. His thesis is predicated on doctrinal and normative assumptions. The doctrinal foundation for the thesis is mistaken, and the norma...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Keele University
2021
|
| Summary: | This is a response to an article written by Timothy Endicott, the principal thesis of
which is that proportionality cannot and should not be a general ground of review. His
thesis is predicated on doctrinal and normative assumptions. The doctrinal foundation
for the thesis is mistaken, and the normative foundations are not tenable. It will be
seen, moreover, that Endicott’s central thesis unravels, since he acknowledges that
courts should intervene under the guise of reasonableness review in cases where
disproportionate burdens are imposed, even where there is nothing akin to a qualified
legal right. |
|---|