Social Policymaker, Arbitrator, And Regulator
The Judiciary as Social Policymaker, Arbitrator, and Regulator:
An Integrated Theory of the Judiciary
PSC 332
11/26/2013
The judiciary plays a unique and pervasive role in American society because of its influence in establishing legal precedent, regulating industry, and crafting social policy. The judiciary is the arbitrator of disputes involving nearly every aspect of human experience, and in many cases these disputes cannot or will not be resolved by the executive, the legislative, and the electorate. Unlike the other branches, the judiciary has no choice but to make some type of decision on the presenting issues. Even a decision not to hear a case has significant repercussions on the relevant issues, …show more content…
Consumer-interest groups, environmentalist groups, and public-interest groups have routinely filed suit against corporations and government agencies considered lax in their interpretation of regulatory laws (Abraham, 1998). Civil litigation recognizes the value of adjudicating contested areas of commercial regulation rather than relying upon legislative action. Even though the courts interpret the law in part by attempting to identify legislative action, Abraham (1998) notes the fact that civil litigation decisions only rely on extra-legislative sources, including social science data and legal arguments in legal periodicals. Civil litigation thus reflects the complex and varied social interests, norms, values, and beliefs with a stake in industry practices.
Similarly, segregation and desegregation decisions by the judiciary have been largely influenced by civil litigation as a result of social and political schism and stalemate. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the American Civil Liberties Union, and other civil-rights organizations have brought cases before the court that become the test cases that led to extraordinarily influential judicial decisions on social structures and norms. These organizations, as Abraham (1998) notes, are often outside the social and political mainstream when they bring civil …show more content…
“Often based on precedents, common law embodies continuity in that it binds the present with the past” (Abraham, 1998, p. 6). Common law is thus contingent, which means it is simultaneously emerging from what came previously yet also capable of producing something new. This ambiguity reflects the fluid nature of social reality itself.
Legal precedent recognizes the value of the past. Yet the judiciary is engaged in evaluating legal precedent as applied to contemporary cases. Inevitably, the role of common law in recognizing and altering precedent as applied to contemporary cases results in the creation of new precedents, which in turn will be evaluated in the future. Common law might be bound by general social principles in legal contexts, but it inevitably places the judiciary in the role of evaluating the continued relevance of those principles as new legal contexts emerge through civil
An Integrated Theory of the Judiciary
PSC 332
11/26/2013
The judiciary plays a unique and pervasive role in American society because of its influence in establishing legal precedent, regulating industry, and crafting social policy. The judiciary is the arbitrator of disputes involving nearly every aspect of human experience, and in many cases these disputes cannot or will not be resolved by the executive, the legislative, and the electorate. Unlike the other branches, the judiciary has no choice but to make some type of decision on the presenting issues. Even a decision not to hear a case has significant repercussions on the relevant issues, …show more content…
Consumer-interest groups, environmentalist groups, and public-interest groups have routinely filed suit against corporations and government agencies considered lax in their interpretation of regulatory laws (Abraham, 1998). Civil litigation recognizes the value of adjudicating contested areas of commercial regulation rather than relying upon legislative action. Even though the courts interpret the law in part by attempting to identify legislative action, Abraham (1998) notes the fact that civil litigation decisions only rely on extra-legislative sources, including social science data and legal arguments in legal periodicals. Civil litigation thus reflects the complex and varied social interests, norms, values, and beliefs with a stake in industry practices.
Similarly, segregation and desegregation decisions by the judiciary have been largely influenced by civil litigation as a result of social and political schism and stalemate. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the American Civil Liberties Union, and other civil-rights organizations have brought cases before the court that become the test cases that led to extraordinarily influential judicial decisions on social structures and norms. These organizations, as Abraham (1998) notes, are often outside the social and political mainstream when they bring civil …show more content…
“Often based on precedents, common law embodies continuity in that it binds the present with the past” (Abraham, 1998, p. 6). Common law is thus contingent, which means it is simultaneously emerging from what came previously yet also capable of producing something new. This ambiguity reflects the fluid nature of social reality itself.
Legal precedent recognizes the value of the past. Yet the judiciary is engaged in evaluating legal precedent as applied to contemporary cases. Inevitably, the role of common law in recognizing and altering precedent as applied to contemporary cases results in the creation of new precedents, which in turn will be evaluated in the future. Common law might be bound by general social principles in legal contexts, but it inevitably places the judiciary in the role of evaluating the continued relevance of those principles as new legal contexts emerge through civil