Judicial Decision Making - Research Paper Example

? Judicial Decision Making: Case Analysis Judicial Decision Making: Case Analysis Introduction Legal decisions are among the most crucial and difficult ones to take. They require not only a sound and in depth knowledge about the law of the land, but also an insight into the repercussions of such decisions. The decision maker should interpret the case at hand depending upon similar precedents and the gravity of the case. Simultaneously, decisions taken by the judiciary would have a bearing on other laws which also have to be taken into consideration. However, the decisions taken, while being in the framework of law also reflect the conscience and the intellect of the individual judging the case. The West Virginia State School Board v Barnette is a case in point. The Supreme Court had ruled that states cannot compel students to salute the American flag. No punitive action whatsoever could be taken either against the students concerned or their parents/guardians. In fact, it was an overruling of an earlier decision in Minersville School District v Gobitis. “The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials” (as cited in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 1943). The court decreed that it was essential to keep such subjects outside the influence of majorities so that numerical strength by way of legislation would not trample the rights of minorities. Similarly, administrative orders and decisions were open to arbitrary interpretations on the part of officials. These were not all-encompassing and were rigidly enforced. Such decisions always left people with grievances. Legal Subculture Every profession breeds its own culture within the over-arching culture of a place. While culture by itself is a relative term, a similar work atmosphere creates common conditions which lead to common aspirations and also a common world view. Hence, a legal subculture develops which comprises all those involved in the judicial process. These include legal practitioners, students of law and the administrative support personnel involved. A prolonged interaction with law makes even the seekers of justice imbibe the nuances of law. Such seekers are known to become comfortable with legal jargon, which is derisively known as ‘legalese’ in common parlance. Hence, the influence of legal subculture on those who practise it is even greater. There is a constant exchange of ideas between people of the same profession which is also the case here. What prompted the ruling in this case (or the overruling of the Minersville case) is also the effect of the legal subculture to an extent. No decision can be taken in isolation. Human factors when coupled with people in a similar environment lead to such rulings. That the earlier decision had been overturned shows the influence of the public on the legal sub-culture in this case. The figure six-to-three for the ruling was not arrived at the spur of the moment. It was only due to deliberations among the various judges that resulted in this ruling. The sub-culture is primarily responsible for the exchange of ideas among the Justices in this context. It must also be remembered that the three dissensions are also due to the same sub-culture which allows divergent views to manifest and coexist with the majority views. Judicial Background The Gobitis case had had a profound influence over the Barnette case. It can be said that it was a curtain raiser to what unfolded three years later. There had been a review by the judges examining the Barnette case in the light of the previous ruling. The court ruled that compelling school children to salute the flag was unconstitutional.  “The Court found that such a salute was a form of utterance and was a means of communicating ideas “ (The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago, Kent College of Law). The compulsory flag salute was in violation of the First Amendment which promises freedom of speech and ideas among other rights to the citizens of US. Each person had the liberty to conform to or to dissent the rules and regulations of the state insofar as it does not affect national unity and security. In a six–to–three decision it was found that non-observance of the flag salute did not amount to any disrespect to the national flag or the integrity of the nation. The flag salute was an individual decision to be left to the student and his/her parents. There was no question of punishing either of them for this act. In the former Gobitis case, the ruling was against the Jehovah’s Witnesses by a margin of eight-to-one. The ruling was misconstrued by the general public and resulted in attacks against the Witnesses in various parts of the country. The context and circumstances in which the Gobitis case ruling was made had changed by the time of the Barnette case. Hence, it was decided in the Barnette case that civil liberties had to be upheld at all costs. Political Party Affiliation American judges are selected from ordinary lawyers and installed on the bench without any specialized training unlike other countries. As Sherry (2013) points out, there are no courses to prepare them for a judicial career; and each Supreme Court Justice is nominated by the president and must be confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate. For instance in October 2012, five different presidents (three Republican and two Democrat) had appointed nine different sitting justices. Hence, diverse political views exist on the court at any given time. New justices are appointed periodically. This makes it clear that no political party can really dominate the legal scene in its entirety. It is difficult to conclude that political affiliation is the only factor in legal decision making. There are instances when justices have surprised their appointing presidents. About a quarter to two thirds of Supreme Court cases are decided unanimously. And in many cases where there is no consensus, it has come to light that the political views of the judges do not reflect in their judgements. Some legal questions have no political posture, for example, questions of a constitutional nature. Another reason for the lack of a political bias is the exalted state of the judiciary in general and the Supreme Court in particular. Each justice is co-opted into the neutral framework of the judiciary which treats everyone equally. The judges rise above partisan considerations to uphold the lofty ideals set forth in the constitution. Were this not the case, the faith that the common man reposes in the law would have long withered. Public Opinion Public opinion can indirectly influence judicial decision making through Congress and the President. Both the Congress and the President represent the interests of the people since they are elected by them. However, the public can also have a direct influence on the judiciary. As Baird (Dec 13, 2001) purports, from the decisions of the court, it can be inferred that it takes the majoritarian view with regard to the manner in which the public is ideologically oriented. There was found to be a strong effect of the public mood on moderate Justices specifically. And according to Baird, every level of the Supreme Court has been influenced in varying proportions at all times by public opinion. A special mention should be made about the Minersville case at this juncture. The public misunderstood the ruling in that case to mean that Jehovah’s Witnesses were traitors. The Witnesses bore the brunt of the majority on this count. This public reaction was the least expected by the judiciary. A strong nation was the context for such a ruling in the Minersville case. However, the backdrop of the Second World War waging across Europe had a profound effect in the US. Even the public were appalled at the loss of civil liberty in the US due to this ruling. The Barnette ruling reaffirmed that individual freedom had to be protected at all costs and that the national security was not imperilled by the action of some students. This judgement was welcomed by the American public and laid to rest a vexed issue in the history of the US. Politics Politics and political affiliations are two terms that are interchangeably used. However, they do not have the same connotation. While political affiliation refers to the allegiance to a political party, its ideology etc. either directly or otherwise, politics is a general though much maligned term. Politics almost always points to an ‘Us v Them’ scenario of discrimination and the means by which one serves one’s personal interests. It is this belief that confuses the term with political part affiliations. Being human, even judges are not immune to such considerations at some point in their careers. Every judge belongs to a particular community and feels loyal and responsible for it. However, on the bench he/she cannot take partisan decisions based on such considerations. Similar to impartiality in spite of political affiliations, a judge cannot discriminate against any section of the society on any grounds. Every judge has sterling examples of impartiality in front of him/her. Hence impartiality becomes a habit or a way of life in many instances. That a wrong had been righted by the judiciary in this case shows that it treats everyone equally. However, personal biases do exist even in legal decisions. It is easy to cloak such decisions in the name of majority verdict. There is a likelihood of the bench being influenced (if not swayed) by popular and personal sentiment when in a group. The legal community should be vigilant enough to nip such tendencies in the bud. Conclusion As Barrett, Peterson, Prettyman, Peters, Edmonds, Snodgrass, & Boskey (2007) point out, the Barnette case has touched upon various aspects of legal decision making; and the Gobitis case was considered a religion issue, whereas the Barnette case was decided on grounds of free speech. The context of the Gobitis case was different and looked at fostering unity among the people of the nation. However, the Barnette’s case was looked at from the prism of the First Amendment. As Hall and Patrick (2006) cited, justice Jackson reminds us that majority rule must be limited by the rule of law in order to protect the disliked minorities as much as the majority. He upholds not only the equality of communities but also the rights of the individual as enshrined in the constitution (p. 95). From the two cases, we can conclude neither regularity nor predictability in the decisions. This does not mean that there are no yardsticks to justice, which essentially is the same for all. What is admirable is the self-critical and self-correcting nature of law as exemplified here. Revisions and updations should be a constant feature to keep the law relevant to the contemporary world. The legal decision making process involves the interplay of several factors. While the fallacies of the human mind are a setback for any legal decision, by and large, the various factors act as checks and balances to provide a just decision which can stand the test of time. Every correct decision made only makes the foundation of justice stronger and paves a smoother road for the future of judiciary. References Baird, V. (Dec 13, 2001). Influences on Supreme Court Decision Making. Retrieved from sobek.colorado.edu/~bairdv/anonymous.pdf? Barrett, J. Q., Peterson, G. L., Prettyman, E. B., Peters, S. F., Edmonds, G. B. Snodgrass, M. B & Boskey, B. (Fall 2007). Recollections of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. St. John's Law Review, 81:755-796. St. John's Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-0089. Retrieved from SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=10299956. Hall, K & Patrick, J. J. (2006). The Pursuit of Justice (An Inspirational Defense of the First Amendment Rights. NY: Oxford University Press. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago, Kent College of Law. OYES. Rretrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1942/1942_591 Sherry, S. (2013). Influence and Independence: Politics in Supreme Court Decisions. IIP Digital. Retrieved from http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/publication/2013/02/20130206142159.html West Virginian State Board of Education v. Barnette 319 U.S. 624 (1943) 319 U.S. 624. retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/319/624.html# Read More