How do judges learn from precedent?
نویسندگان
چکیده
Federal appellate judges cite cases by sister circuits. Why is that? Common wisdom holds that judges look to out-of-circuit cases for credible legal arguments -as persuasive precedent. But hard-core adherents of the attitudinal model (Segal and Spaeth 2002) – and certain cynical realists and critical legal studies scholars – might argue that judges decide in accordance with their policy or political preferences and cite cases only to cover up that fact or to legitimize acting out their preferences.
منابع مشابه
Informative Precedent and Intrajudicial Communication
We develop an informational model of judicial decision-making in which deference to precedent is useful to policy-oriented appellate judges because it improves the accuracy with which they can communicate legal rules to trial judges. Our simple model yields new implications and hypotheses regarding conditions under which judges will maintain or break with precedent, the constraining effect that...
متن کاملCourts II
I intuitively agree with Segal and Spaeth's conclusion that Supreme Court justices are guided in their decision-making by their personal beliefs and attitudes. For one thing, if jurists ideological beliefs were not important, the party of the president who nominated a justice would not matter, which seems clearly at odds with the facts. I also acknowledge the difficulties the authors face in at...
متن کاملThe Role of Panels in Enhancing Legal Predictability
This article considers the justification for using panels of judges to make decisions in common law systems. The usual argument is that panels are more likely than lone judges to make correct judgments. This article suggests an additional justification: panels increase the predictability of law, so that potential litigants can anticipate correctly which legal rules will apply in their cases. Th...
متن کاملProfessionals or Politicians: The Uncertain Empirical Case for an Elected Rather than Appointed Judiciary
Conventional wisdom holds that appointed judges are superior to elected judges because appointed judges are less vulnerable to political pressure. However, there is little empirical evidence for this view. Using a data set of state high court opinions, we construct measures for three aspects of judicial performance: effort, skill, and independence. The measures permit a test of the relationship...
متن کاملJudicial Security in pre trial stage in iran criminal law and Judicial precedent
Judicial Security is the concept based on which the reputation, life, property and all material and intellectual rights of the Human Being are protected by law and keep guarded by the Judiciary Power. Creating such an environment means observing some criteria by which the legal protection goal, namely reaching legal justice, is realized. Securing justice protection for all and the equal protect...
متن کامل