This chapter introduces the central dilemma of the book: judges who must decide cases in which the law requires a result that they believe to be morally objectionable or bad public policy. The conventional wisdom is that judges must adhere to the law in such cases, at least in reasonably just systems. Judges are regularly criticized for deviating from the law, and are increasingly threatened with reprisals for doing so. This chapter illustrates the topic with concrete examples and summarizes the arguments ahead. It focuses the discussion on legally clear cases, rather than unclear cases, and distinguishes the question of judicial deviation from the more familiar question of departures from horizontal precedent. Relations between this project and the literatures on political obligation and rule following are explained.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.