The Supreme Court: The Political Nature of the Court of Last Resort
The Supreme Court is not a neutral deduction machine, but a political body in a functional sense. Richard Posner debunks the myth of legalism, demonstrating that in constitutional matters, judges operate in a "gray area" where the letter of the law provides no clear answers. This article analyzes how discretionary law-making affects system stability and why understanding judicial psychology is becoming a key element of risk management strategy for modern business.
Discretion: The Judge as De Facto Legislator
In situations where statutory text and precedents are silent, the judge ceases to be a mere executor of rules and becomes a designer of norms. This is involuntary freedom: the court must issue a ruling even when the legal material is a nebula. Legalist theory, while useful in routine cases, fails in major disputes over the distribution of goods and freedoms. In such instances, the only real check on judicial power is not another paragraph, but reputation and legitimacy—the risk of losing social acceptance and the threat of institutional retaliation from other centers of power.
The Decision-Making Model: A Synthesis of Judicial Behavior Theories
Posner proposes a coherent model in which a ruling is the result of multiple overlapping layers. Attitudinal theory points to the judge's ideology, while strategic theory highlights the game of building a majority within the panel. Psychology plays a crucial role: judges act as "Bayesian machines," filtering evidence through their priors (pre-existing beliefs). From an economic and organizational perspective, a judge is a specific type of state employee motivated not by the market, but by a craft ethos and the need for respect. The phenomenology of adjudication completes this picture, showing the judge caught between freedom of choice and the corset of institutional responsibility.
The End of the Chevron Doctrine: A New Era of Risk for Business
The landmark departure from the Chevron doctrine (the Loper Bright case) marks a tectonic shift of interpretive authority from the executive branch to the courts. For capital, the era of bureaucratic predictability is ending, replaced by a time of legal uncertainty and costly litigation. In this context, legal pragmatism—focusing on the consequences of decisions—becomes more important than doctrinal purity. However, Posner warns against judicial cosmopolitanism; treating foreign law as a "fig leaf" often serves only to mask a judge's subjective choices and diffuse responsibility for the verdict.
Law and Capital: Directions in the Evolution of Mutual Ties
The politicization of the courts is not a character flaw in judges, but a structural consequence of constitutional indeterminacy. Attempting to hide this fact leads to hypocrisy, while absolutizing it leads to cynicism. In the realm of constitutional dilemmas, law becomes the art of choice rather than mere rule execution. Judges, like engineers of normative infrastructure, must weigh conflicting interests and sign off on decisions that others will call law. In this constant adaptation of law to a changing reality, will we manage to maintain faith in its justice, or are we condemned to a systemic erosion of trust?
📄 Full analysis available in PDF