The phrase "a jurisprudence of" is correct and usable in written English.
It is typically used to refer to the principles and philosophy underlying a system of law. For example: - "The Supreme Court's decision reflected a jurisprudence of protecting individual rights." - "The university's law program focuses on developing a jurisprudence of social justice." - "The legal scholar is known for his groundbreaking work in developing a jurisprudence of international human rights."
In 1985, Edwin Meese, Reagan's Attorney General, gave a speech urging the Court to adopt a "jurisprudence of original intent".
He seems sympathetic, in other words, to a more ambitious role for judges than a jurisprudence of the gentle nudge.
Other academics have taken on similar projects over the years: there is a jurisprudence of William Shakespeare, of "Billy Budd," and of Yogi Berra.
Free speech doctrine, he said, should not be "a jurisprudence of labels," and "the 'government speech' doctrine is a rule of thumb, not a rigid category".
In Qatar, the high-profile televangelist Yusuf al-Qaradhawi has advanced a "jurisprudence of jihad" that forbids the killing of most civilians.
He would like to see a "jurisprudence of healing," which puts you in mind of incense and New Age music rather than the rigorous distinctions that the law is usually thought to demand.
And the thought of the delights to come from here on in could almost cause one to come down with a jurisprudence version of Stendhal syndrome, where the sufferer faints with delight at the beauty of it all.
He continued: "At best, this decision will lead to a constitutional jurisprudence of 'squeezes,' thereby complicating further already complex Fourth Amendment law".
That case was the capstone for an emerging jurisprudence of freedom-in-attire, coming after court decisions in New York and Idaho striking down bans on women wearing pants, and a decision in New Hampshire ending a ban on bluejeans.
"That is quite a worldview," he said of a jurisprudence that allows nonconsensual testing of people presumed innocent but denies voluntary testing to people who insist that they really are innocent.
Could adversity temper a jurisprudence that critics of the chief justice have discerned as bloodless and unduly distant from the messy reality of the lives of ordinary people who fail to file their appeals on time?
