Courts often make policy without information about situations their rulings affect.
Evidence
According to Horowitz, courts are less likely than other institutions to obtain relevant information or use it effectively. Courts announce broad policy—for example, the inadmissibility of illegally seized evidence—in the course of deciding specific cases. This poses no difficulty if the case is representative of all possible situations that the court’s ruling will affect. According to Horowitz, this rarely happens; courts make policy without information about many situations that their policy will affect, and the result of such ill-informed policymaking is likely to be bad policy. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1472
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: Adversarial proceedings exclude many parties whom a court ruling will affect. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1475; Judicial rulings have policy consequences yet judges should not impose their own policy views — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2688; Judicial rulings can set legal obligations without settling disputed public policy — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 207 (+4 more)
Broader Connections
- Courts lack the remedial flexibility and cost-benefit tools of other policymakers
#corroborates(0.85) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2871 - Judicial rulings have policy consequences yet judges should not impose their own policy views
#complicates(0.82) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2688 - Judicial rulings can set legal obligations without settling disputed public policy
#complicates(0.78) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 207