1) The first Objection based on legal realist of law is that law is made by legal legislatures and constitutions which works in one state might not work in another and that it could go both ways and it is left in the hands of the judges to make a decision which could affect both parties. Law as stated above is made by constitutions and legislatures but the law is merely a state prediction as to how it will follow. The example given is of a taxi business which is owned by the Jones family who own the Blue & Gray Taxi Company and made a contract with the A & B Railroad company and The Kentucky Corporation and had come to a decision that they were to have exclusive rights to the railroad company’s depot. A rival taxi cab company began to ignore
…show more content…
According to Judge Hutcheson, he wrote in his report that most of his decisions were based on intuition and that he waited to get a flash of understanding or a hunch that connects their decision with the question. Unlike the lawyers who already know their aim that is to win the case but judges on the other hand have to find a solution and see where his hunch leads him. So we have to rely on a judges hunch but the question is where do these hunches come from, most of the time these hunches come from stimuli’s such as social, economic and moral prejudice’s but according to Frank as stated earlier he states that law does not coincide with morality. A judge is supposed to be free from all biasedness, he is presumed to be an intermediate free from any animosity or emotion when concerning a particular …show more content…
Most legal theorist will reject that law is a set of rules but it does not change the fact that it equals to rules which the court use and these rules are made by judges so they do constitute the law. The judge comes to a conclusion based on a decision because decisions are based on legal rules so therefore he is making a law which becomes contradictory because Jerome Frank states that the legislators are the ones that make the law but judges just merely just apply
According to Judge Hutcheson, he wrote in his report that most of his decisions were based on intuition and that he waited to get a flash of understanding or a hunch that connects their decision with the question. Unlike the lawyers who already know their aim that is to win the case but judges on the other hand have to find a solution and see where his hunch leads him. So we have to rely on a judges hunch but the question is where do these hunches come from, most of the time these hunches come from stimuli’s such as social, economic and moral prejudice’s but according to Frank as stated earlier he states that law does not coincide with morality. A judge is supposed to be free from all biasedness, he is presumed to be an intermediate free from any animosity or emotion when concerning a particular …show more content…
Most legal theorist will reject that law is a set of rules but it does not change the fact that it equals to rules which the court use and these rules are made by judges so they do constitute the law. The judge comes to a conclusion based on a decision because decisions are based on legal rules so therefore he is making a law which becomes contradictory because Jerome Frank states that the legislators are the ones that make the law but judges just merely just apply