Judges’ attitudes and institutional context, not law, drive their rulings.

Evidence

The second approach, which I shall call the political perspective, insists that judicial decision making closely resembles decision making by other political actors. According to this view, extralegal factors are decisive in judicial decision making: the attitudes of the judges, their conceptions of how they should behave, and the institutional context in which they operate. Although judges must justify their rulings on the basis of law, law merely provides the justification for judicial decisions; it does not altogether constrain judicial choice. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2438

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the ‘political perspective’ on judicial decision making, one of the two central frameworks the chapter contrasts with the legal perspective.
• XREF: Connects to attitudinal and strategic models of judicial behavior and to legal realist critiques of formalism. — connects to: Even segregationist judges reluctantly followed Supreme Court rulings on property — Kevin M. Kruse, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of…, 167; Institutional dependency lets judges routinize program use beyond eligibility rules. — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of…, 196; Judges’ scheduling self-interest can license weaker objections to survive. — , Harr Jonathan - A Civil Action , 1742 (+17 more)

Broader Connections

• Pragmatic law judges rules by their consequences, not their origins. #corroborates (1.00) — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 38
• The political perspective holds that judges’ attitudes determine their rulings. #corroborates (1.00) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2647
• Judicial rulings have policy consequences yet judges should not impose their own policy views #complicates (1.00) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2688
• Judges’ personal attitudes systematically shape their case votes. #corroborates (1.00) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2579
• Judicial decisions result from attitudes, role conceptions, and institutional constraints interacting together. #corroborates (1.00) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1286
• Judges’ politics, gender, and family shape their rulings empirically #corroborates (1.00)
• Judges expand or narrow precedent by reasoning analogically, not mechanically. #qualifies (1.00) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1278
• Judges rely on personal values when competing legal principles are evenly balanced #corroborates (1.00) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 156
• Variation in judges’ role conceptions, not state law, explains divergent school finance rulings. #corroborates (1.00) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 3302
• Judges’ attitudes cannot be reliably inferred from opinion rhetoric #complicates (1.00) — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 120
• Judges’ personal attributes and even trivial bodily states can shape decisions #corroborates (1.00)
• Regional political culture shapes the attitudes judges bring to the bench #qualifies (0.85) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2576
• Judges create the rules they apply rather than applying preexisting rules. #complicates (0.85) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2526
• Formal judges strengthen reputation systems rather than replace them. #complicates (0.75) — PAUL R. MILGRO, PAUL R. MILGRO - THE ROLE OF…, 14
• Judges may not comment on government policy or law merits. #complicates (0.75) — Lynley Hood, A City Possessed, 3260