judicial tyranny

[Justin Schwartz]

I am familiar with the legal realist views, also the crit revampings of 
these. As someone who works with federal judges for a living, I think I can 
recognize the extent to which the critique is valid and to what extent it 
isn't. I can distinguish between bad decisions that are lawless, and those I 
think are awful but legally colorable or even legally required. I think that 
federal judges in the 7th Cir and on the Northern District of Illinois are 
capable of rendering a legally colorable decision against their own 
political views or preferences about the outcome, in about 90-95% of the 
cases. I can't speak so much for other Circuits, districts, or state courts. 
But I can tell you that I try real hard not just make it up and impose my 
policy preferences, and so does my judge.--jks


>From: Jim Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com>
>Reply-To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: Re: judicial tyranny
>Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:01:40 -0400
>
>
>On Tue, 15 May 2001 12:23:50 -0400 Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>writes:
> > Justin Schwartz wrote:
> >
> > >We are indoctrinated as lawyers to think law _isn't_ just politics,
> >
> > >that its legitimacy derives from adherence to internally consistent
> >
> > >principles--the meaning of statutes and the constitutional
> > language,
> > >respect for precedent.
> >
> > Really? This naivete makes economists look worldly.
>
>Perhaps, these guys should read some of the old legal realists.  A little
>Thurman Arnold might do them some good.
>
>Jim F.
>
> >
> > Doug
> >
>________________________________________________________________
>GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
>Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
>Join Juno today!  For your FREE software, visit:
>http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com