How Judicial Deference Towards Institutionalized Organizations Changes

In the Tinker vs. Des Moines court case the judges decided for Tinker even though both arguments from the lawyers where not well made. The judge’s decision was made by who they thought they should go for even though both sides had bad arguments and made a bigger deal of this case than what it should really be.

What would a person who follow the Natural Law School of thought have to say about the Dudley and Stephens’ case and why would they say it?

Gerald N. Rosenberg discusses the three views on the power of courts to cause social change, as well as the Miranda decision, in his popular and provoking book, The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Rosenberg examines the underlying beliefs and theories for each of the views, as well as the problems one can encounter with both the constrained and dynamic views of the courts. It is from these problems that Rosenberg creates the Condition Dependent view of court power. To understand Rosenberg’s argument about the power of courts to cause change, it is important to understand the two other models of court power which Rosenberg synthesizes.

It is stated that “the problem is that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in the DOMA case, did not explicitly address the constitutionality of laws against same-sex marriage, even as he eloquently condemned Congress for demeaning married same-sex couples” (Los Angeles Times). To determine why it is taking so long for the justices to stop prolonging the issue, the article looks at the evidence of how information has not been completely addressed. It is clear that the higher courts have yet to finalize a decision on same-sex marriage. Court observers hypothesized that justices wanted the ruling of same-sex marriage to go to the lower courts because the process is proving will prolong for years until a final decision is made. However, “the speed with which lawyers and lower-court judges are pressing the issue suggests that the justices will have to confront it sooner rather than later” (Los Angeles Times). This is a representation of the definition of a forensic argument, to look at the actions of the past to determine the present.

It is often believed that the relationship between certainty and flexibility in judicial precedent has struck a fine line between being necessary and being precarious. The problem is that these two concepts of judicial precedent are seen as working against each other and not in tandem. There is proof, however, that as contrasting as they are on the surface they are actually working together to achieve one common goal.

2.what was the feared outcome from this type of court ruling ? in other words,what type of message is the judge sending to society (cew)

In legal models, the judge makes a decision based on facts and laws without considering how the decision may impact public policies. They may also utilize previous cases that have similarities to the current case in order to make a decision. This is useful because they may interpret the Constitution from different points of views of other justices or judges which had to make a decision on a past similar case (Video Engager). The only downside to this model is the fact that judges make decisions without

According to Robertson’s article ‘There is also a potential loss of the accumulated value of the precedents that have been established — a loss of history. Because law has value as information that can inform decision-making about future actions, anything that changes the law can potentially destroy value’. This can definitely be threatening to not only the judicial courts, but to the very basis that established well known fundamentals of law, with that being said, contracts are modernising and so must the legal structure in order for citizens to be better educated and protected.

It would be impractical for judges to not make law in some situations as both parties in the case would not want the judge to refuse to deal with the case and they would want the matter decided. ‘Judicial decisions are important as a source of law on matters where the government is

It is easy to see that the legal factors involved are themselves not perfect. Since the Court is made up of human beings who are similarly imperfect, it is not implausible to suppose that the Court likewise

Legal cases are generally decided upon when a judge applies the law to the facts of the case; however, the Constitution is ambiguous which means it can be comprehended differently. The way the Constitution is translated in today 's society and applied to modern laws is a responsibility that the Supreme Court justices must uptake. Many factors are believed to play a role in how exactly justices finalize and make their decision, which is why political sciences created three different models of judicial decision making. The legal model, attitudinal model, and strategic model help us grasp a better understanding of what may influence the decision making process. As stated earlier, some decisions are based on the law being applied to the facts, and this decision process is explained in the legal model. The legal model also expresses how justices, in addition to using facts and the law, can use information from previous and almost equivalent cases helping them determine their decisions. Unlike the legal model, the attitudinal model explains how justice’s policy preferences can influence their decision. This model shows how legal text of the Constitution could possibly be ignored, and instead the justices’ own opinions, just like politicians, would guide them through the decision making process. According to Unit 8 Video Engager, it is believed that the justices may take this approach due to the fact that they are entitled to a

In what has been referred to as a “profound shift in the rules of judicial engagement”

The choice between the diffuse and the concentrated model of judicial review (and, within the concentrated family of systems, between the supreme court version and the constitutional court version) is often understood to reflect a divide among two competing theories of constitutional law. One theory perceives constitutional law as, first and foremost, a field of law, to which regular adjudicatory method is applicable, along with its assumptions of professionalism, objectivism, and interpretivism. This theory aligns with the diffuse model of judicial review, since it leaves constitutional jurisdiction in the hands of the professional judiciary. A contrasting theory posits constitutional law as a unique field of normative ordering,

All three of these cases, if mechanical jurisprudence were to have been applied, would have been dealt with in the same way. This presence of ‘open texture’ makes it difficult to believe that the judiciary applies its trade in systematic and a mechanistic way, when the law is so general and vague. Open texture and our relative indeterminacy of aim when legislating leaves room for judicial discretion and breadth in the law.

The legal-formalist belief in the capacity of legal rules to determine the outcomes to legal disputes without having recourse to the judge’s political beliefs or sense of fairness has been severely criticised by, amongst others, legal realists and critical legal studies scholars. This assignment will firstly address what legal formalism entails, following which the criticisms of legal formalism will be discussed and lastly whether legal formalism can impede the transformative ideas of the Constitution. All of the above will be analysed to determine the role of legal formalism today.