Judges’ personal attributes and even trivial bodily states can shape decisions

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

Category: Definitional Content

• CANDY: The ‘judge impacted by what he ate for breakfast’ detail is a charming, tweetable nugget that instantly crystallizes the legal realist critique.
• DEFINE: Distinguishes legal formalism from legal realism — a useful conceptual framework.

Related

• Judge attributes beyond the law shape judicial outcomes (similarity 0.93)
• Judges are layered products of legal, judicial, national-bench, and period-style conditioning. (similarity 0.80)