Theoretical Approach: Rational - The Role Of Individuals Acting To Advance Their Interests Or Personal Preferences Flashcards
What approach should justices take to the law
-justice take a rational approach to law analysing the merits of each case + making a logical judgement
-if meaning of law clear then justices should reach unanimous judgements
What happens to this approach if the meaning of the law is difficult to determine
-if meaning of law difficult to determine then justices make an individual judgement based on their personal analysis
-this can result in divided judgements with justices writing strong opinions + dissents on both sides of argument
How is this seen in the US
-individual justices make decisions based on own legal preferences + philosophy
-US presence of strong lib + cons justices means judgments attempt frequently controversial + justices may be accused of judicial activism
How is different to the Uk
-in US justices tend to follow a more restrained judicial approach
How else is the judiciary politicised under rational theory
-judiciaries are often censured by individuals aiming to advance their own interests
-politicises judiciary + outs justices under pressure
How is this seen in the US
-some leaders of the US wanted to reform judiciary to benefit them
-e.g. Trump splinted unprecedented numbers of appeal court judges, choosing more cons candidates than previous Repub presidents
How is this willingness for leaders to reform the judiciaries seen in the Uk
-Johnson appointed attorney general Suella Braverman who had argued that parl needed to ‘take back control’ from judiciary which she felt was acting as a ‘political decision maker’ + ‘supplanting parl’
