Waldron is a liberal and a normativelegal positivist. He has written extensively on the analysis and justification of private property and on the political and legal philosophy of John Locke. He is an outspoken opponent of judicial review and of torture, both of which he believes to be in tension with democratic principles. He believes that hate speech should not be protected by the First Amendment.[8] Waldron has also criticised analytic legal philosophy for its failure to engage with the questions addressed by political theory. His later work is devoted to providing a non-religious and non-Kantian concept of human dignity, based on a thought experiment of leveling up all human beings to the high rank of nobility or aristocracy, thus constituting a single rank or caste. He has been working on this topic since he gave the Tanner Lectures on the subject in 2009, published in 2012 as Dignity, Rank and Rights.[9]
Criticism of judicial review
Sandrine Baume has identified Jeremy Waldron and Bruce Ackerman as leading critics of the "compatibility of judicial review with the very principles of democracy".[10] Baume identified John Hart Ely alongside Dworkin as the foremost defenders of this principle in recent years, while the opposition to this principle of "compatibility" were identified as Bruce Ackerman[11] and Waldron.[12] In contrast to Waldron and Ackerman, Dworkin was a long-time advocate of a moral reading of the United States Constitution, whose lines of support he sees as strongly associated with enhanced versions of judicial review in the federal government. A staunch defender of the principle of democratic legislation, in an article titled "The Core of the Case against Judicial Review", Waldron argued for a limited role for judicial review in a robust democratic government.[13] Waldron asserts that there is no inherent advantage to a judiciary's protection of rights than to a legislature's if (1) there is a broadly democratic political system with appropriate suffrage and process,[14] (2) there is a system of courts somewhat insulated from popular pressure and engaged in judicial review,[15] (3) there is a general commitment to rights,[16] and (4) there is disagreement as to the content and extent of rights.[17] Even so, Waldron does not argue against the existence of judicial review, which may be appropriate when there is institutional dysfunction. In this case, the defense of judicial review compatible with democracy is limited to remedies for that dysfunction and are neither unlimited nor universal. Waldron thus places his view of judicial review in the tradition of Justice Harlan Fiske Stone.[18]
Affinity with judicial minimalism
In a review of a 2015 book by Cass Sunstein, Waldron stated that between the polarity represented by judges who can be "heroic" in the interpretation of their judgments and those who abstain, that his preference would be sympathetic to a position which could be described as "judicial minimalism". Waldron states his examples of such judges as including Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Ginsburg, and Felix Frankfurter.[19]
2017. One Another's Equals: The Basis of Human Equality, Harvard University Press. ISBN978-0674659766
Articles
2001, "Normative (or Ethical) Positivism" in Jules Coleman (ed.), Hart's Postscript: Essays on the Postscript to The Concept of Law. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN0-19-829908-7
2003, "Who is my Neighbor?: Humanity and Proximity," The Monist 86.