Indulging equitable discretion too far would make every judge a legislator.

Evidence

And, on the other hand, the liberty of considering all cases in an equitable light must not be indulaed too far. Iet thereby we destrov all law and l=tedgsion ofever luestion entire1 in the breast of judge. And law, without egut. iard and isareeable, is much more desirable for the public good, than equity without law: which would make every judge a legislator, and introduce most infinite confusion; as there would then be almost as many different rules of action laid down in our courts, as there are differences of capacity and sentiment in the human mind. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 1303

Categorization

• DEFINE: Canonical statement of the equity-versus-law boundary: fixed rules are preferable to unfettered judicial discretion.
• recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source
• XREF: connects to: Courts may not amend a statute however desirable policy change may be — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 1059; The Enlightenment reduced the judge to an intellect insulated from character and values — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process: Basic Problems in…, 3465