Legal Formism And Limitations Of Legal Realism

Decent Essays
Introduction
Legal formalism is a belief, in the capacity of legal rules, to determine the outcomes to legal disputes without having recourse to the judge’s political beliefs or sense of fairness. Formalism posits that judicial interpreters can and should be tightly constrained by the objectively determinable meaning of a statute; if unelected judges exercise much discretion in these cases, democratic governance is threatened. Legal-formalist have been severely criticised by, among others, legal realist and critical legal studies scholars.
This essay aims to discuss the criticism of legal formalism by the above mentioned movement and school of thought. This will be achieved by critically engaging with questions of whether criticisms of legal
…show more content…
However, the most fundamental criticisms of the realist movement relates to their approach to rules, and the arbitrary nature of judicial decision making. One distinguished approach of the realist, the so-called predictive theory, is when a judge on the highest court sees the law as a prediction of what the judges will do. The argument against this theory is based on how the highest court is the final word on what the law will mean and there is no other court whose decisions the judges could try to predict. However, the legal realist did not offer a predictive theory of law which advances semantic claims about how we use words, they focused on prediction because of its practical significance for lawyers advising clients. In this regard, the realist have grounds to claim that their movement is misunderstood.
Criticism of legal formalism by legal-realist can be justified by the ultimate purpose of the realists. Unlike legal formalist that wanted to maintain a strict distinction between law as it is and law as it ought to be, the purpose of legal realist being the reform of the law, is that they believed that the ‘ought’ of the law could not be effectively advanced until the ‘is’ was clearly understood. Legal realist wanted people in the legal profession to spend more time thinking about how law appears on the ground: to citizens for whom the law only means prediction of what the trial judge will do in their

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    The issue with letting Parliament decide on these matters is that Parliament is under pressure from the majority, which can lead to enacting draconian measures against who they fear is the enemy, which is usually a minority with little protection . The courts are removed from this pressure and can question the need for new polices that Parliament may introduce which can infringe on human rights . The legitimacy of the judiciary comes from that fact that it has to have rational arguments, its decisions must come from a legal authority and the judiciary is independent from politics ensuring an unbiased opinion . This gives legitimacy to judicial decisions against unjust laws passed by the government. This is an important when human rights are being considered because with issues of national security can often lead to improper treatment of minorities and foreign nationals.…

    • 1936 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    For example, when judges rule on cases which involve weighing up several legal rules, they exercise their discretionary abilities to find a course of action that they feel is the best. But these ‘moral’ issues, the soft positivist proposes, are no more than social attitudes and norms; morality does not transcend a society. The laws allowing slavery would be deemed evil today, while at the time they reflected what was socially acceptable. Hard positivism, defended by Joseph Raz , maintains that law and morality not only need not be connected, they must not be connected. The concept of law can only be explained without any reference to morality at all.…

    • 1632 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The issue of judicial restraint vs. judicial activism is that judicial activism* is generally refers to judges who allow their personal and political views to affect their interpretation of the law, and, consequently, their decisions in important cases. Judicial activists are often accused of ignoring stare decision when making their decisions. (American Psychological Assoc.) For Judicial restraint is a judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. Judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional, though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some…

    • 978 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Contemporary Jurisprudence: Make Up Assignment for Seminar 2 My group presented the text of Dworkin: Dworkin tries to find a middle ground between Hart and Fullers’ theories, building his jurisprudence on an attack of Hart’s claim that the law consists only of rules. Like Fuller, Dworkin thinks that the law is inherently interpretative. Dworkin contends that in reality the materials available to judges are wider than only rules, and that in practice judges use principles and background justifications as well as rules to decide hard cases. Dworkin argues that by using the full range of legal materials available to judges, they will not have to rely on discretion and instead will be able to solve hard cases objectively in a principled way according…

    • 1259 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This essay will critically analyse inclusive legal positivism and will provide with arguments why it is a positivistic theory of law in name only. To do so, it will explore the essence of what legal positivism is by discussing the issues concerning morality and authority. The main argument of soft positivism being a positivistic theory in name only will consist of the assertion that the presence of morality in it makes it contradict with the essence of positivism, namely, that a connection between legality and moral truth cannot exist. This essay will criticise inclusive positivism based on exclusive positivism’s characteristics which will be considered to form the definition of legal positivism. Legal positivism believes that law is a closed…

    • 1559 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Thus, there is something uneasy about upholding moral principles society cannot agree upon, especially when this process has no other virtues. Judges deferring to Parliamentary decisions However, there is great tension as soon as we change our beliefs on the nature of law and hence, the legal reasoning implemented regarding the extent to which judges shape the law. For example, with positivism – under either Hart or Kelsen – law is separate from morality. Under Hart’s theory, there is some room for judges to apply discretion, as rules have a core of easy meaning and application, and a penumbra of uncertainty. However, for the most part, judges are to apply the clear legal rules which are posited.…

    • 1728 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Government Vs Constitution

    • 1410 Words
    • 6 Pages

    He also argues that the judiciary merely has the power of judgment, rather than force or will, and that the judiciary depends on the other two branches to support its judgments. However, when the Supreme Court makes a decision, this decision stands since it is deemed “the supreme law of the land”. In Marbury v. Madison, Marshall argued that it is a responsibility of the Supreme Court to overturn unconstitutional legislation in accordance to the judges’ “oath or affirmation” to uphold the Constitution, as described in Article VI. Although Hamilton argues that the judiciary is in “continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced” by the other two branches of government, with judicial review the Supreme Court can decide if a treaty violates the provisions of existing law or…

    • 1410 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Justice Macalia Textualism

    • 1571 Words
    • 7 Pages

    As argued by Judge Richard A. Posner, strict constructionism, or what he refers to as “legal formalism” adheres to principles of the law that are “too narrow” (O’Brien 204). Judge Posner further argues that in legal formalism, the text of the law is meant “to decide whether the right exists,” as they are written in the Constitution (O’Brien 204). By that account, although strict constructionism only reads the text and uses a literal meaning, it still applies the literal intent of the law. For that reason, Judge Posner argues that when using the element of meaning, Judges cannot make their decisions by reading the text directly (O’Brien 207). As Judge Posner states, the Constitution does not say, “read me broadly or read me narrowly” (O’Brien 207), as to suggest that the meaning of the text should not be interpreted…

    • 1571 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Scalia argues that the key to making a court democratic is by interpreting the Constitution according to the framers’ intent. Scalia writes, “words do have a limited range of meaning, and no interpretation that goes beyond that range is permissible” In other words, there are only so many ways to interpret a statute without going beyond what the legislature intended. In addition, Scalia addresses the concerns of critics when it comes to using ambiguous passages in the Constitution. Scalia replies by saying, “judges must do their best to figure out, first, the original meaning of laws and, second, the practical implications given new contexts for those original meanings.” To support that argument, Scalia cites the First Amendment…

    • 1449 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Should Judges Make Law

    • 1958 Words
    • 8 Pages

    It is arguable that as judges are not elected, their role in law making should be limited as policy decisions are based on society and it is more appropriate for an elected body to do this. Lord Esher said ' 'if the words of the act are clear then you must follow them even if they lead to manifest absurdity ' '. Another reason is that it is difficult to know when applying the purposive approach what parliament actually intended. So it is arguable that judges are putting in their own values on what they think parliament intended, especially with old acts. For example, it is difficult to know what members of Parliament were thinking when the Offences Against the Person Act (1861) was passed as it was a long time ago and words in the Act are not used in the same way today.…

    • 1958 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays