Judge attributes beyond the law shape judicial outcomes

Evidence

Judges differ on a number of dimensions, including age, experience, race, gender, and political affiliation, among others. Although legal formalism suggests that the facts of a case, the fundamental principles of judicial decisionmaking, and the letter of law should determine judicial outcomes, it has long been argued by legal realists that attributes of judges, ranging from life experiences to ideological beliefs, can have an impact on judicial decisions. Leading legal realist Judge Jerome Frank, who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, has even argued that a judge’s decision may be impacted by mundane things, including what he/she ate for breakfast (see Frank, 1973). — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 746

Categorization

• DEFINE: The formalism-versus-realism divide is the classic frame for whether personal attributes actually matter in judging.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 746
• XREF: connects to: The legal perspective holds law as the primary determinant of judicial decisions — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1360; Legal uncertainty creates disputes, litigation, and judicial discretion — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 214; Where a case is heard shapes who can win it. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 328 (+5 more)