Law and Politics: Legal Reasoning Lecture Part 1

Legal Reasoning Lecture Part 1 The Rule of Law: • How does Carter and Burke define the rule of law? ○ They use the four factor approach to legal reasoning, in which they call sound legal reasoning • Is it more or less accurate? The Rule of Law - Definitions: • Law only becomes "the rule of law" only when courts have the power to resolve legal claims or when people, knowing that powerful courts can step in to settle matters for them. ○ Bargain in the shadow of the law ○ Incorporates a powerful and independent judiciary • The point of the rule of law is to set standards of governance that transcend individual beliefs ○ Substitutes legal reasoning for moral righteousness. • The basic principle of the rule of the law obligates judges to justify the result in each new case in such a way that we trust their impartiality ○ Only good legal reasoning can build and maintain that trust The Nature of Legal Reasoning: • Legal reasoning describes what judges do to justify their decisions when they cannot demonstrate or prove they have reached the right answer • While reference to a statute or rule can in some cases resolve a disputed issue, in other cases the plain language of the law may not indicate a clear or obvious resolution Core/Penumbra Concept: • Legal questions that fall within the core are easily resolved by the application of legal rule ○ These cases rarely see a courtroom ○ No need to litigate, they can be resolved § Sometimes by a lawyer or paralegal or by consulting the relevant law • Legal questions that fall within the penumbra are NOT readily resolved by simple application of legal rule or standard ○ These cases rarely see a courtroom ○ No need to litigate, they can be resolved § Sometimes by a lawyer or paralegal or by consulting the relevant law • Legal questions that fall within the penumbra are NOT readily resolved by simple application of legal rule or standard ○ Hard cases that end up in litigation and generate the written decisions that make up legal precedent ○ Several areas of possible ambiguity in the hard cases § More than one rule that is arguably applicable to the dispute § Rules may directly conflict, or simply differ in such a way that they lead to varying outcomes § How a rule is understood or interpreted § How a rule applies to the facts at hand ○ Lawyers employ legal reasoning to resolve these ambiguities and hopefully persuade judges to rule in their favor. Think Like a Lawyer: • Empirical Reasoning - deductive logic ○ Identify hypothesis (x) ○ Test against KNOWN facts (A,B,C) ○ Confirm or Refute § If A+B+C, then X or Not-X ○ If A, B, and C are true, than X must be true and not-X must be false • Empirical Reasoning wants to reach a definitive correct conclusion • Legal Reasoning - Inductive Logic ○ Identify Position (Y) ○ Find Support for Y (A, B, C) ○ Assess Strength of Support § If A+B+C then Y is likely +/○ If A,B,C strongly support y, then y is well supported, but not y may be well supported to What is Legal Reasoning? • Use inductive logic to establish more or less support for a position • Promises coherent, well supported conclusions ○ The laws of nature lend themselves to deductive reasoning valid/invalid results because they are consistent - they reference a physical world that has a definite unique structure • Legal rules, unlike natural law is not consistent ○ Humans have conflicting values, supporting conflicting ○ The laws of nature lend themselves to deductive reasoning valid/invalid results because they are consistent - they reference a physical world that has a definite unique structure • Legal rules, unlike natural law is not consistent ○ Humans have conflicting values, supporting conflicting policies, and take conflicting approaches to realizing their values ○ No value, principle, policy, plan, or rule references a definite unique structure that necessarily precludes the correctness of another value, principle, policy, plan or rule. ○ Legal problems involve incompatible contradictory rules and principles § None of which can be logically disproven § All can be invoked to assist incompatible and contradictory logically sound arguments or valid conclusions • Legal arguments can be incorrect ** ○ People make mistakes, miss relevant law, misunderstand case law etc. ○ Even when everybody has correctly read and understood there can still be multiple valid arguments and sound conclusions • Lawyers and judges use legal reasoning not to discover the right answer but to articulate the better, supported more compelling argument.