Judicial role orientations can override a judge’s personal moral beliefs.

Evidence

Judicial role orientations operate as self-imposed obligations, restricting the actions that a judge undertakes. They are important because they can affect judicial decisions. For example, role orientations may prevent judges from voting in line with their personal beliefs. As Box 8.3 shows, in Furman v. Georgia Justice Harry Blackmun voted to uphold the constitutionality of the death penalty even though he abhorred capital punishment on moral grounds. Similarly, Felix Frankfurter voted to uphold state laws requiring students to salute the American flag despite his opposition to such laws. In both instances, the justices voted as they did because of their conceptions of appropriate judicial behavior—in particular, their belief that judges’ personal convictions should not affect their votes. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2595

Categorization

• XREF: Blackmun in Furman and Frankfurter in the flag-salute cases tie directly to death-penalty and First Amendment doctrine covered in the course.
• SHARE: The Blackmun-abolishes-capital-punishment-but-upholds-it fact is a perfect nerdy tidbit for someone who tracks Supreme Court personalities.