1932

Abstract

Judges and scholars often speak about the very same subject in very different terms. Judges regularly provide written explanations of their rulings, and scholars regularly argue that the true determinants of judicial decision making lie beyond the words of the judicial opinion. This review engages lines of research that take the fact of competing judicial and scholarly accounts of judicial decision making as the subject of study. In particular, this review surveys three different bodies of work that explain the enduring divide between judges and scholars in terms of motivated reasoning, judicial crisis, and the contradictory demands placed on the judicial process. These three literatures provide ways of thinking about the rule of law in the United States without dismissing the perspectives of either judges or scholars.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102811-173852
2012-12-01
2024-06-16
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102811-173852
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error