Judges Commons^™

Judicial Jabberwocky In The Presidential Election 2000: When Law And Facts Collide With Politics, Theresa H. Hammond

Mercer Law Review

Long before the United States Constitution was ratified, Americans displayed a deep skepticism of the judiciary. Codification of extremely detailed and complex laws was the palliate to judicial activism. People believed that if the laws were all published and readily accessible, judges would have less ability to substitute their own personal values and predilections for the will of the people, established through the legislation promulgated by their chosen representatives. Hamilton's first essay on the judiciary assured New Yorkers that "the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power" and that "the liberty of the people can …

Not Interaction But Melding—The "Russian Dressing" Theory Of Emotions: An Explanation Of The Phenomenology Of Emotions And Rationality With Suggested Related Maxims For Judges And Other Legal Decision Makers, Peter Brandon Bayer

Mercer Law Review

Even after centuries of contrary philosophy and psychology, many commentators, jurisprudes, and law makers insist that emotions have no legitimate place in most legal decision making. This recalcitrance, of course, is misplaced in light of the powerful body of theory explaining that without emotions, decisions, including matters of law and policy, simply cannot be made. Judges, along with all societal actors, must disabuse themselves of the fallacious belief that emotions obstruct or obscure reason in all endeavors, particularly morality, law, and justice.

The project of truly apprehending emotions, however, requires more than appreciating that they play a crucial role in …