Judicial rulings have policy consequences yet judges should not impose their own policy views

Evidence

Grutter and Gratz show that judges cannot altogether avoid policymaking. But they do not prove that critics of judicial policymaking are mistaken. Rather, the two perspectives on judicial policymaking can be viewed as complementary. Whereas one view emphasizes that judicial rulings inevitably have policy consequences, the other view cautions that rulings rooted in the judges’ policy views are inappropriate. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2688

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Hidden value judgments, not logic, drive key judicial decisions — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2550; Judges must abandon adversarial advocacy for impartial detachment — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 555; The law rarely dictates outcomes, so judges’ political views decide most cases. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1283 (+18 more)

Broader Connections

• Judges should use consequences to guide statutory interpretation. #complicates (0.82) — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 116
• Judges may not comment on government policy or law merits. #contradicts (0.78) — Lynley Hood, A City Possessed, 3260
• Deference to agencies must not abdicate judicial review over policy decisions #complicates (0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1234