Objecivity in Judicial Decision Making

Paper Summary:

This paper examines the debate over the subjectivity / objectivity of judicial decisions with some focus on the Australian High Court decision in Mabo and the predicament of the U.S. Supreme Court as a known activist court. The paper includes a diagram which explains the hierarchy of the judicial system.

Contents:
Announcing law: Judicial Interpretation
Mabo (No.2): The problem of negative activism
Pragmatism: an analogy to the U.S. Supreme Court
Bibliography

From the Paper:

"The rule of law is axiomatic to modern liberalized democracies, on both a idealistic and utilitarian basis, undeniably vital to the stability of the judiciary . As a practical consideration it protects an individual's rights whilst forcing limitations on an institution's freedoms (including the executive government). As a philosophical touchstone of the judiciary, it enshrines some of the most intuitive and valued notions of justice and equality. Yet the concept of the rule of law, though much admired, is not infallible, at times frustrated (and even perverted) by competing legalist and normative interests."

More papers on Objecivity in Judicial Decision Making:

• Research Paper # 2151 : "Emotions and Feelings in the Decision Making Process"
• Research Paper # 129098 : "The Role of Natural Capital in Economic Decision-Making"
• Analytical Essay # 130455 : "Ethical Theories in Business Decision Making"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: