Abstract

This article zeroes in on the traits of legal reasoning under the innovations associated with dialogical constitutionalism and procedural turns in adjudication. A critical reconstruction of concepts is followed upon two different crossed oppositions for each development: First, regarding the proposals associated with the dialogical turn, stock is taken of “power” and “voice”-related justifications, as well as formal and informal venues for deliberation. Second, the discussion of a procedural turn in legal reasoning is structured upon the distinction of “system” and “case”-based reasoning, as well as “exclusionary” and “merits-based” reasons. As a result, an explanatory priority is accorded to standards of review which incorporate reasons stemming from deliberative procedures, reinforcing the possibility of democratic control by those subject to decisions. This article is mainly analytical and reconstructive, integrating diverse debates under a common frame. Its main innovation is the proposal of a novel matrix of criteria to compare the diversity of debates related to a dialogic and a procedural turn, within legal reasoning itself. Finally, the different innovations are meant less as an alternative, and more as a supplement to the substantive discussion implied in democratic decision-making.