Library Catalog
Amazon cover image
Image from Amazon.com

Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide : The Role of Politics in Judging / Brian Z. Tamanaha.

By: Material type: TextTextPublisher: Princeton, NJ : Princeton University Press, [2009]Copyright date: ©2010Edition: Course BookDescription: 1 online resource (264 p.)Content type:
Media type:
Carrier type:
ISBN:
  • 9780691142807
  • 9781400831982
Subject(s): DDC classification:
  • 347.73/14 22
LOC classification:
  • KF8775 .T36 2010eb
Other classification:
  • online - DeGruyter
Online resources: Available additional physical forms:
  • Issued also in print.
Contents:
Frontmatter -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- 1. Introduction -- Part One. The Legal Formalists -- 2. The Myth about Beliefs in the Common Law -- 3. The Myth about "Mechanical Jurisprudence" -- 4. The Holes in the Story about Legal Formalism -- Part Two. The Legal Realists -- 5. Realism before the Legal Realists -- 6. A Reconstruction of Legal Realism -- Part Three. Studies of Judging -- 7. The Slant in the "Judicial Politics" Field -- 8. What Quantitative Studies of Judging Have Found -- Part Four. Legal Theory -- 9. The Emptiness of "Formalism" in Legal Theory -- 10. Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide -- Afterword -- Notes -- Index
Summary: According to conventional wisdom in American legal culture, the 1870s to 1920s was the age of legal formalism, when judges believed that the law was autonomous and logically ordered, and that they mechanically deduced right answers in cases. In the 1920s and 1930s, the story continues, the legal realists discredited this view by demonstrating that the law is marked by gaps and contradictions, arguing that judges construct legal justifications to support desired outcomes. This often-repeated historical account is virtually taken for granted today, and continues to shape understandings about judging. In this groundbreaking book, esteemed legal theorist Brian Tamanaha thoroughly debunks the formalist-realist divide. Drawing from extensive research into the writings of judges and scholars, Tamanaha shows how, over the past century and a half, jurists have regularly expressed a balanced view of judging that acknowledges the limitations of law and of judges, yet recognizes that judges can and do render rule-bound decisions. He reveals how the story about the formalist age was an invention of politically motivated critics of the courts, and how it has led to significant misunderstandings about legal realism. Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide traces how this false tale has distorted studies of judging by political scientists and debates among legal theorists. Recovering a balanced realism about judging, this book fundamentally rewrites legal history and offers a fresh perspective for theorists, judges, and practitioners of law.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number URL Status Notes Barcode
eBook eBook Biblioteca "Angelicum" Pont. Univ. S.Tommaso d'Aquino Nuvola online online - DeGruyter (Browse shelf(Opens below)) Online access Not for loan (Accesso limitato) Accesso per gli utenti autorizzati / Access for authorized users (dgr)9781400831982

Frontmatter -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- 1. Introduction -- Part One. The Legal Formalists -- 2. The Myth about Beliefs in the Common Law -- 3. The Myth about "Mechanical Jurisprudence" -- 4. The Holes in the Story about Legal Formalism -- Part Two. The Legal Realists -- 5. Realism before the Legal Realists -- 6. A Reconstruction of Legal Realism -- Part Three. Studies of Judging -- 7. The Slant in the "Judicial Politics" Field -- 8. What Quantitative Studies of Judging Have Found -- Part Four. Legal Theory -- 9. The Emptiness of "Formalism" in Legal Theory -- 10. Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide -- Afterword -- Notes -- Index

restricted access online access with authorization star

http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_16ec

According to conventional wisdom in American legal culture, the 1870s to 1920s was the age of legal formalism, when judges believed that the law was autonomous and logically ordered, and that they mechanically deduced right answers in cases. In the 1920s and 1930s, the story continues, the legal realists discredited this view by demonstrating that the law is marked by gaps and contradictions, arguing that judges construct legal justifications to support desired outcomes. This often-repeated historical account is virtually taken for granted today, and continues to shape understandings about judging. In this groundbreaking book, esteemed legal theorist Brian Tamanaha thoroughly debunks the formalist-realist divide. Drawing from extensive research into the writings of judges and scholars, Tamanaha shows how, over the past century and a half, jurists have regularly expressed a balanced view of judging that acknowledges the limitations of law and of judges, yet recognizes that judges can and do render rule-bound decisions. He reveals how the story about the formalist age was an invention of politically motivated critics of the courts, and how it has led to significant misunderstandings about legal realism. Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide traces how this false tale has distorted studies of judging by political scientists and debates among legal theorists. Recovering a balanced realism about judging, this book fundamentally rewrites legal history and offers a fresh perspective for theorists, judges, and practitioners of law.

Issued also in print.

Mode of access: Internet via World Wide Web.

In English.

Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page (publisher's Web site, viewed 30. Aug 2021)