Even good-faith judges reach different rulings because judgment involves discretion

Evidence

Rather partisans on both sides recognized that even judges who seek to banish personal predilections and decide in accord with the law may arrive at quite different conclusions. These differences among judges may occur because judges’ views and values inevitably influence their judgment, because the exercise of judgment necessarily involves an element of discretion, or for a variety of other reasons. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 369

Categorization

• DEFINE: Explains the mechanism by which judicial discretion produces divergent outcomes even absent bad faith.
• XREF: connects to: A complete account of judging combines legal rules with attitude-influenced discretion — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2649; Judges’ personal attributes and even trivial bodily states can shape decisions; Vague judicial mandates expand lower judges’ discretion to limit rulings — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3188 (+10 more)

Broader Connections

• A complete account of judging combines legal rules with attitude-influenced discretion #expands (0.88) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2649
• Judges’ values and discretion mean who sits matters for outcomes #corroborates (0.88) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 499
• Judicial discretion means choosing among alternatives thought equally permissible rather than reasoned elaboration #expands (0.85) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 373
• Judges rely on personal values when competing legal principles are evenly balanced #exemplifies (0.85) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 156
• Judges create law when forced to choose among competing interpretations. #corroborates (0.82) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 196
• Judicial discretion is constrained by written opinions and the craft of judging. #qualifies (0.82) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1281
• Vague judicial mandates expand lower judges’ discretion to limit rulings #exemplifies (0.80) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3188
• Hidden value judgments, not logic, drive key judicial decisions #corroborates (0.78) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2550
• Ambiguous law is filtered through the judge’s personal lens #exemplifies (0.78) — Lawrence M. Friedman and Grant M. Hayden, American Law, 427
• Judicial opinions mask value judgments behind a surface of logical form. #corroborates (0.76) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1290
• Judges’ personal attributes and even trivial bodily states can shape decisions #expands (0.75)