Judicial discretion is constrained by written opinions and the craft of judging.
Evidence
If judicial decision making does not proceed by deductive reasoning, can judges not manipulate precedents and other legal materials in order to decide cases on the basis of their personal values? Unfortunately, there is no simple answer to this question. One check on judges is that they must explain and justify their rulings in written opinions. The opinions are subject to public scrutiny and criticism, which imposes some limitation on judges. In addition, judges operate within constraints imposed by the craft of judging and the traditions of the law. Among these constraints is the notion that judges should decide according to law, even though it may conflict with their personal views. Box 8.2 suggests that judges take this responsibility seriously. However, it also suggests that how judges interpret the law may be affected by their backgrounds, experience, and personal values. This recognition leads us to the political perspective on judicial decision making. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1281
Categorization
- XREF: Ties directly to ch1’s point that judicial discretion is channeled by constraints, not eliminated, and to ch50’s deductive-model discussion. — connects to: Judicial discretion is channeled by constraints, not eliminated. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 188; The law rarely dictates outcomes, so judges’ political views decide most cases. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1283; Common law legitimacy derives from published judicial opinions and public reasoning. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 115 (+2 more)
- DEFINE: Marks the pivot from the legal/mechanical model to the political perspective, which frames the rest of the chapter.
- recurring: this claim recurs 2 times within its source
Broader Connections
- Common law legitimacy derives from published judicial opinions and public reasoning.
#corroborates(0.85) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 115