Hearings serve political-barometer and safety-valve functions beyond fact-finding

Evidence

The merit of this proposal is that it would secure appropriate information from sources most competent to provide it. The disadvantages are: (1) that it would be costly, and (2) that it would eliminate two of the avowed functions of the hearing - that of furnishing a “political barometer” to measure the strength of the competing forces arrayed for and against a legislative proposal, and that of providing a “safety valve” for those members of the community who wish to express their views publicly. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 701

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to the earlier hearings chapter (interest-alignment signaling); supplies vocabulary for the polyad discussion. — connects to: Hearing transcripts rarely influence committee bill decisions — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 665; Public hearings are preference tallies, not meaningful deliberation; Uncommitted hearings function as interest-alignment signaling rather than evidence evaluation — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 648 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Uncommitted hearings function as interest-alignment signaling rather than evidence evaluation #corroborates (0.90) — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 648
• Legislative hearings function as displays of raw power, not deliberation. #expands (0.80) — Robert A. Caro, The Power Broker, 4571