Legal expertise and persuasive opinions are a judge’s main influence tool

Evidence

Perhaps the most potent weapon available to a judge is legal expertise—and the ability to bring that expertise to bear in a well-crafted judicial opinion. As a federal court of appeals judge put it, “Some judges are simply better than others. Some know more, think better. It would be strange if among nine men all had the same ability. Some simply have more respect than others.” The importance of legal expertise is hardly surprising. Committed to deciding cases in accordance with the law, judges are receptive to legal arguments from their colleagues. If those arguments are compelling, they can be persuaded to switch their votes. As Justice Robert Jackson once admitted: “I myself have changed my opinion after reading the opinions of the other members of this Court. And I am as stubborn as most.” Of course, the arguments that judges find compelling may to some extent depend on their attitudes and their role conceptions, and justices seeking to entice colleagues to join their opinions are likely to frame their arguments accordingly. Also, judges are more likely to be persuaded by colleagues who generally share their perspective on legal issues. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1336

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to ch19 note that opinion-drafting dialogue among appellate judges shapes or narrows collective decisions. — connects to: Legal reasoning reduces to the judge drawing distinctions and the lawyer predicting them — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1301; 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; Legal analysts evaluate deductive reasoning by starting from the conclusion. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 361

Broader Connections

• Common law legitimacy derives from published judicial opinions and public reasoning. #corroborates (0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 115
• Legal reasoning reduces to the judge drawing distinctions and the lawyer predicting them #responds-to (0.72) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1301
• Legal analysts evaluate deductive reasoning by starting from the conclusion. #responds-to (0.72) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 361