Are EJR and JEI saying they want judges to give a higher priority to slowing down the spread of liability than to impartially and proper application of the law?

Thu, 08/02/2012 - 16:47 -- lwheeler

Absolutely not. Nor are we saying it is preferable for a judge to have a 100% rating. If a common sense, faithful reading of a statute or the common law says that a certain injured person should be compensated for that injury, or that one business or not-for-profit agency has somehow wronged another person or entity, we believe that is how a judge should decide the case. EJR and JEI want judges to follow the law and do justice. As indicated above, it is principally when judges do not agree that this evaluation studies and critiques their decisions. By analyzing a judge's record over numbers of cases where outcomes have not been dictated clearly or easily by current law (and therefore the judges have disagreed or the court has had to struggle with a new issue of law), this study gives insight into each judge's philosophy and values. And these beliefs and values are very important, for much of the law applied in our courts is "common law" or "judge made" law. Tort law, for instance, is largely a matter of common law. Judges create these common-law rules, one precedent at a time.