The function of judges in our legal system

The function of judges in our legal system needs to have an extension such that judges are allowed to be independent sources of law in the conventional law systems. It has been a tradition that instead of the judges interpreting codes to come up with a rule, the common law judges create laws which the antecedents have made. Judges should be allowed to make their judgment that is not dependent on traditional laws. It is not good that judges always try to narrowly cling on the existing rules of laws that were made in the past by their processors. Judges have, in a long time, restrain their interpretations of the traditional laws in a way that they do not accommodate any plausible interpretations.

Need Help Writing an Essay?

Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your project

Write My Essay For Me

On ruling hard cases, I believe that judges should embrace creative responsibility and come up with new laws. The constitution interpretation mostly depends on judicial creativity. For instance, the U.S. Constitution is an original document whereby the higher law makes the overall provision for national governance. The judges under the legal system offer generalized operation for the constitution system into their law-making process on hard cases.

Legal reasoning is the method that judges use in the application of legal rules to given interaction amid legal persons. Judges most apply this type of argument, especially on deciding a case about a legal precedent applying the judicial norm known as stare decisis. Judges do not just make decisions and judgment since they mostly use the legal doctrine of Stare Decisis, which is a legal doctrine that mostly obligates them to follow the historical cases when ruling a similar situation. Previous legal decisions do meaningful constraints on the judges’ decision. When governing a case, the court mostly utilizes the Supreme Court precedent, which explains that the ruling had gone through a proper evaluation before settling to the decision. If judges are allowed to create their verdict, they might have temptations to include some bias ruling most, especially if they happen to know the parties.

To some extent, judges should follow the previous legal decisions if the cases are similar. Still, if the cases are not identical, there is a need for the judges to incorporate their ruling to ensure that they are fair enough in their judgment. Judges should not treat previous judicial decisions as settled law since times are changing, and there is a need to incorporate the changes that are taking place. Cases cannot be completely similar, and they might differ in a small section, which might mean so much in a case and ignoring that will me ignoring justice

Response
thanks for starting us off on this week’s topic. I’d like to push you on a point or two, with the aim of both seeing what you think and perhaps refining what the topic is meant hopefully to illustrate for us.First, as you and some of your colleagues can clearly see, there is a tension between the lawmaking function of common law courts, like we have in the US, and the legal norm of stare decisis. The two are not necessarily in conflict, at least not all of the time (as Levi’s treatment of legal reasoning shows), but the fullest realization of one seems to entail a limitation of the other. In particular, some of the most important ‘landmark’ decisions of the Supreme Court have been decisions in which it embraced a lawmaking function and broke from some significant precedent. So, our courts are often most visible and perhaps most impactful when they give precedent fairly limited respect.Second, a further question for you. Wind back the clock to 1954, when the Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education. The long-standing legal precedent on the issue of racial segregation was clear enough: separate facilities were consistent with the 14th Amendment, so long as they were ‘equal’ (as stated in Plessy v. Ferguson, which came up a good bit last week too). Regardless of your own personal views of the issue, what do you think could have justified the judges on the Court to pull a 180, and break from that precedent so resolutely? There could be many possible reasons, but which one seems most plausible to you? Or, stated more generally, if stare decisis is generally a good rule to follow, what kind of circumstance might justify a judge or court to break from it in a specific case? What are your thoughts?

Sample Solution

The post The function of judges in our legal system appeared first on ACED ESSAYS.