The first model to the judicial decision making is the attitudinal model. This model of judicial decision making speculates that a judge’s behavior can be predicted mostly by his or her policy attitudes. It perceives judges of the court as motivated by policy goals and unconstrained by the law. Therefore, they decide cases according to moral preference rather than by the meaning or intention of legal texts. One review of the attitudinal model is the fact it relied heavily on unreliable evidence. Also, the attitudinal model of decision making does not always interpret from explaining justice’s decisions at the Supreme Court. Most legal practitioners such as lawyers and judges are likely to think that a very simple attitudinal model is missing …show more content…
The strategic model acknowledges that judges seek to achieve policy goals, but it also acknowledges that they are subject to certain restrictions in doing so. Since they cannot act accordingly to preference, they must act strategically to achieve their goals given by the restrictions. It argues that like politicians, justices make their decisions based off other’s decisions or make their decisions while trying to determine how another person will react from it. This decision style says justices would base their decisions on the influence of other justices.
The last model of the judicial decision making is the legal model. The legal model assumes that judges give in to the law when making decisions. If a judge has any personal preferences for an outcome in a case, it is assumed that he or she leaves these preferences aside and defers to the facts of the case or legal standard when making his or her decision.
I believe that the attitudinal model best describes the behavior of Supreme Court Justices because the Court tends to focus on those cases in which the law is uncertain, the lower courts are divided, or there is an apparent need for a change in the law. Besides, cases which are controlled by clear rules of law are usually settled
Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two opposing philosophies when it comes to the Supreme Court justices' interpretations of the United States Constitution; justices appointed by the President to the Supreme Court serve for life,and thus whose decisions shape the lives of "We the people" for a long time to come.
federal courts: A content analysis based on agency theory. PhD diss., The George Washington University.
In William Hudson’s book, American Democracy in Peril, he writes about different “challenges” that play a vital role in shaping the future of the United States. One is the problem of the “imperial judiciary”. Hudson defines its as that the justice system in the United States has become so powerful that it is answering and deciding upon important policy questions, questions that probably should be answered by our democratic legislatures. Instead of having debates in which everyone’s voices are heard and are considered in final decision-making process, a democratic-like process; we have a single judge or a small group of judges making decisions that effect millions of citizens, an “undemocratic” process. Hudson personally believes the current state of judicialized politics is harming policy decisions in Americans. According to him, the judicial branch is the “least democratic branch”, and ...
Supreme Court Justices demonstrate judicial restraint when they refrain from acting as policymakers, deferring to the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, as long as the policymakers stay within the boundaries as established by the United States Constitution. Stare decisis, a legal principle where precedent decisions are followed, plays a major role in judicial restraint. The current Chief Justice, John Roberts Jr., showed judicial restraint in his majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) (Root, 2012). In this opinion, Chief Justice Roberts clearly explains judicial restraint: “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices” (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius,
First of all, judges play an essential role in our democracy, by interpreting the law and being impartial, they make decisions which keeps our country in a democratic state. Judges promote and support charter rights, including freedom and equality. A strong case that proves that judges are an essential part in a democracy is shown in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, John Obergefell was fighting for the legalization of same - sex marriage in The United States. On November 2014, the case went to the supreme court where it caught the attention of the nation. Obergefell was not only fighting for his own rights
The courtroom is a ritualised space, involving costume, language, spatial organisation and so on, and courts, therefore, constitute performative exercises of power. Discuss some of the ways in which courts demonstrate power and/or power relations.
In order to understand whether judges would be better at making decisions if they were more truthful, if is essential that an examination of the manner in which they decide cases is undertaken. Many judges will decide based on their own personal back ground. For example, if the judge had a clash in the past with a member of a different race that might play a role in the decision making process. Judicial impartiality is a fundamental characterized in a legal system under the rule of law. The law against bias together with the right to be heard from the principles of natural justice. Judicial proceedings must follow stricter procedural requirements. Implying that proceedings must be similar to those followed in court proceedings. If the requirement is not followed, the decision could be invalidated by a court if it is challenged. Plea bargaining in the United States is controversial issue because the practice of plea bargaining is necessary as long as the United States has high crime rates and facilities for cases. Plea bargaining allows the flexibility necessary if the system is to respond with any degree of concern for the circumstances of individual cases, however, it may also entice defendants to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit rather than risk their constitutional right to
The Honorable Jonathan Yates, former deputy general counsel for the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight of the U. S. House of Representatives, writes, “This lifetime term now enjoyed by justices not only contravenes the spirit of the Constitution, it counters the role intended for the court as a minor player in the equal judiciary branch of government. Term limits are needed to adjust the part of the court to the intent of the founding fathers” (Np). Judge Yates explains that the greatest powers of the Supreme Court did not originate from the Constitution or Congress, but from their own rulings (Np). The most prominent of which, was being Marbury v. Madison, in which the court granted itself judicial review, or the power to determine the constitutionality of legislation (Yates). Furthermore, the intended role of the court by the founding fathers was so small, that it did not have a home, or meet to hear any cases (Yates). An amendment to the Constitution removing the lifetime tenure of U.S. Supreme Court judges needs consideration by Congress. Lifetime tenure on the U.S. Supreme Court has led to four points that could not have been foreseen by the creators of the Constitution. The first problem resulting from the Supreme Court’s tenure policy is that judges’ are holding on to their seats, disregarding debilitating health issues. The second issue that has arisen from lifetime tenure is the use of strategic retirement by sitting judges to ensure a like-minded replacement. The third development resulting from lifetime tenure is the steady decrease in case decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. The fourth and final effect lifetime tenure has had on the Supreme Court is an increase in celebrity status of the judges, which has le...
Their long term in office liberates judges from partisan burdens and inhibits attacks on judicial power by the executive and legislative branch. Independence gives the judicial branch the ability to guard the Constitution and the rights of the people against the legislature. That means that he believes that the judicial branch is less likely to abuse a person's as compared to the executive or legislative. He felt that judges should have independence from the sanction of the executive, legislature, and the individuals so they can satisfy the judicial qualities defined in the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution offers that federal judges are selected to life term thru good behavior, so the courts can remain independent from the other two
The American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.
A strategy of decision making that stood out to me when taking this class is when we talked about Segal and Spaeth’s attitudinal model. We talked about this model in terms of the Supreme Court Justices and how they resolve cases on the basis of facts and their attitudes. I found it the most interesting because it is perhaps the one I agree with the most. In legal 250 one of the things we talked about is that judges and their decisions could be based on how their mornings went or how close it is to lunch. From this, we discussed that the ideological views of the judge and his policy preferences can have more effect on his decision making than the law. In Judges and Judging it is also important to note that we learned that judges decisions are
supreme courts make the decisions that affect the whole country, inferior courts are just as
Something more common is stare decisis, which is a type of methodology, and common law that they use along with interpreting the constitution. It is used so judges have some type of consistency and are bound to their past decisions. Stare decisis there are four primary reasons to follow it, it treats cases the the same, makes the law more predictable, strengthens judicial decision making and furthers stability (Oldfather, 2014). This is important in regards to constitutional interpretation because it is basically saying that judge is also bound to past constitutional interpretation. Some of the precedents produced by stare decisis are bad, but that’s because the system is not perfect. The implementation of precedence is also complicated because you have to find cases that are sufficiently alike and most cases are not identical (Oldfather, 2014). Another significant factor in stare decisis, is that the courts usually feel more comfortable in overruling constitutional precedents than amending the constitution, which is much more difficult. Stare decisis is commonly used in adjudication, probably the most prominent articulation of it was in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where they analyzed if they wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, in terms of its workability (Oldfather,
The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.
The strict supremacy of statute over judicial decisions and a tradition of literalism in statutory interpretation, 2. Where no legislation exists, the courts are bound by the doctrine of precedent in accordance with a strict hierarchy of judicial authority, 3. In the absence of a relevant precedent, the judges will be guided by legal principle and reasoning by analogy, and 4. There is a clear way of distinguishing the ratio of a case. A key feature of the unwritten constitution is ‘the separation of powers’.