Judicial decisions blend clear-law obedience with attitude-driven choice in ambiguous cases
Evidence
Which of these accounts of judicial decision making is more accurate? Unfortunately, the question has no clear-cut answer. Perhaps the best account of judicial decision making incorporates both legal and extralegal factors. It seems reasonable to assume that judges take their oath to dispense equal justice under law seriously. Thus, when the law is clear, judges can be expected to follow it. As the Legal Realists have shown, however, often the law is not clear, and the judge must choose between two plausible legal arguments. Though judges recognize that they must choose the stronger legal argument, their perception of the facts of the case and the strength of the competing arguments is influenced by their experience and beliefs. Their choices, then, cannot be divorced from their attitudes. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1365
Categorization
- XREF: connects to: The law rarely dictates outcomes, so judges’ political views decide most cases. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1283; Legal training and role orientation partially neutralize judges’ personal beliefs — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1366; Party affiliation reliably predicts how state court judges decide cases — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 432 (+9 more)
Broader Connections
- A complete account of judging combines legal rules with attitude-influenced discretion
#expands(0.92) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2649 - Hidden value judgments, not logic, drive key judicial decisions
#corroborates(0.82) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2550 - Judges’ personal attributes and even trivial bodily states can shape decisions
#expands(0.80) - Sincere egalitarian conviction coexists with unconscious bias that surfaces only in ambiguous decisions
#expands(0.78) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 862 - Judges create and reshape legal rules by reasoning analogically across cases, not by deduction
#qualifies(0.75) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2542