Courts lack the remedial flexibility and cost-benefit tools of other policymakers

Evidence

The more flexibility policymakers have in devising solutions to problems, the more likely they are to solve them. According to Horowitz, courts have far fewer options than do other policymakers. Because courts must decide cases on the basis of law, they cannot impose a compromise solution on disputants, no matter how desirable such a compromise may be. Further, if people have a legal right, they have it regardless of cost, and thus cost—benefit analysis—the prime approach to contemporary policymaking—plays little role in judicial policymaking. Finally, courts have fewer means of remedying illegal situations than do other governmental institutions. They can forbid, permit, or require actions, but they can neither tax nor spend (although their orders may require expenditures by other branches). They can neither create new agencies to administer their directives nor appoint officials to oversee their implementation. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2871

Categorization

• XREF: Links to Ch8 claims about courts lacking power to dictate policy and depending on political support. — connects to: Courts frame policy issues in terms of legal rights, not costs and benefits; Whether courts address problems at the opportune time is largely a matter of chance — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2852; Courts do not simply dominate American policymaking. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 191 (+5 more)
• DEFINE: Spells out the structural capacity limits on judicial policy remedies.

Broader Connections

• Judicial rulings have policy consequences yet judges should not impose their own policy views #qualifies (0.80) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2688