The phrase "a neutral principles" is not correct in written English.
It should be "neutral principles" or "a neutral principle" depending on the context.
Example: "The court's decision was based on neutral principles that applied equally to all parties involved."
Alternatives: "impartial principles" or "objective principles."
To show that textualism is a neutral principle rather than "a technique for achieving ideological ends," Justice Scalia lists some of the opinions he has written and joined that, thanks to a textualist approach, are at odds with his policy preferences as "a confessed law-and-order social conservative".
Specifically, Fish has a quarrel with neutral principles.
But the law is ordinarily understood as a system of neutral principles consistently applied.
Still, many judges say that the law is a set of neutral principles that can be applied mechanically and ought not to vary depending on the judge applying them.
Where lawyers see a set of carefully calibrated neutral principles meant to ensure equal treatment, Mr. Rosenbaum sees a system that robs participants in lawsuits and prosecutions of the opportunity to tell their own messy, contradictory, inconclusive stories.
At the moment, insisting on the neutral principles Fish dismisses seems a truly inspired bit of adhoccery.
The editors also accused Mr. Bork of taking neutral principles out the window — an accusation he would hear more than once in his life.
He began to evolve a similar theory of law, seeking what he called "neutral principles".
A proper assessment might begin by challenging the assumption that neutral principles, abstracted from history, are capable all by themselves of deciding issues that arise only in historical circumstances.
As in his previous venture into political philosophy, "There's No Such Thing as Free Speech: And It's a Good Thing Too," Fish argues that there are no neutral principles that stand above and regulate political debate.
