| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | Another example can be seen in Lochner v. New York, as the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment protected an individual’s right to sell her own labor without governmental interference. Holmes, in a dissenting opinion, noted that regardless of the justifications given by the majority opinion, the justices were actually using their unstated, laissez-faire economic beliefs to justify such an unconstitutional holding. | |
<
< | In the end, constitutional history seems to suggest that the justices on the Court make value judgments whether explicit or not; justices either apply a particular standard of review knowing full well the outcome, or they make a doctrine fit their ultimate opinion. | >
> | In the end, constitutional history suggests that the justices make value judgments, whether explicit or not; justices either apply a particular standard of review knowing full well the outcome, or they make a doctrine fit their ultimate opinion. | | | III. Adopting a False Sense of Impartiality "Legitimizes" the Judiciary
Further, the use of this logical façade legitimizes the judiciary, through making the institution appear impartial. The Court seems especially concerned with maintaining legitimacy through applying reasonably foreseeable standards of review. For instance, in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Court noted that overturning Roe would disrupt society as people have relied upon legalized abortion. Further, the Court contends that overturning such a decision would lead to institutional illegitimacy. | |
<
< | This appears to be a consistent theme across law; courts hope to appear as if their hands are tied by unseen and powerful standards or tests. Frank might call this legal magic. We believe doctrine, standards, and tests ensure justice is fairly administered. An almost ritualistic belief in the impartiality of these institutions allow citizens forget that ultimately law is administered by human beings, imposing upon the law their own subjective judgments. | >
> | This appears to be a consistent theme across law; courts hope to appear as if their hands are tied by unseen and powerful standards or tests. Frank might call this legal magic. We believe doctrine, standards, and tests ensure justice is fairly applied. An almost ritualistic belief in the impartiality of these institutions allow citizens forget that ultimately law is administered by human beings, imposing upon the law their own subjective judgments. | | |
IV. Adopting Holmes's View on the Law Empowers Lawyers | |
<
< | Initially, I felt this view of law denigrated the role of a lawyer. But as I came to realize, Holmes’s view doesn’t limit the role of a lawyer, but rather provides them with a more realistic view of how the legal system works. Rather than blindly depending on impartiality and objectivity, lawyers must take into account all factors that affect the outcome of a case, whether psychological, sociological, historical, biological, or legal, regardless of field. A lawyer must be able to read people, not just law. | >
> | Initially, I felt this view of law denigrated the role of a lawyer. But as I came to realize, Holmes’s view doesn’t limit the role of a lawyer, but instead provides them with a more realistic view of how the legal system works. Rather than blindly depending on impartiality and objectivity, lawyers must take into account all factors that affect the outcome of a case, whether psychological, sociological, historical, biological, or legal, regardless of field. A lawyer must be able to read people, not just the law. | | | Law is not just a system of calculated deduction, but a complex investigation into how logic and emotion intertwine to in the complex and imperfect human structure. Far from limiting a lawyer, this only empowers lawyers to be more successful with their license regardless of their field or client. |
|