Homework 2220: Meyerson, Why Courts Should Not Balance

Just read sections II, III and IV (but skip IV C), p 806-817 (inclusive). Since I'm not asking you to read the first section, here's some context: the article is about what we should do when protecting rights comes into conflict with promoting the good (or avoiding bad). The article focuses on judges, but I think the arguments apply more generally.

Please answer the following questions IN YOUR OWN WORDS. Please keep your answers brief when possible.

1. a. Give an example (not from the reading) of a first order reason (see 807-808). (1 pt)
b. Give an example (not from the reading) of a second order reason (see 808). (1 pt)

2. What's the main difference between the balancing model and the reweighting approach? Put this in your own words - explain it so that someone who hadn't read this paper would understand it. Also, don't just tell me what each says, explain how they differ. (2 pts)

3. What does the author mean when she says that the reweighting approach rejects the monism of the balancing approach? Put this in your own words - explain it so that someone who hadn't read this paper would understand it. (2 pts)

4. Why does the author think that, in the long run, using the reweighting approach will create more good than using the balancing approach? (2 pts)

5. When protecting a moral right has significant costs (as in the examples of statutory rape laws, or laws protecting the right against self incrimination), in your opinion how should we weigh the rights against the other costs (how should we decide what to do)? (2 pts)