ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> Conglomerate

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Academic

: Conglomerate

Is It Best For Judges To Regulate Late, If At All?

By Gordon Smith, Christine, Hurt, Vic Fleischer, Fred Tung, Lisa Fairfax, David Zaring

ADVERTISEMENTS

I noted that courts have formed an unimportant part of the financial crisis interventions by the government, and that the end of the Supreme Court's most recent term suggests that it gets to matters years, if not decades, after they have become settled law one way or the other.

Is this a bad thing?  Bainbridge says no:

The very nature of their social role precludes judges from being proactive regulators. They can make law, of course, but they can't do so without an actual case or controversy to use as a vehicle for doing so. Finding a case that has the right facts and the right procedural posture to make new law can take quite a while. This is especially true for the SCOTUS, of course, since it can take years for cases to find their way through the lower court system.

When it comes to complex issues like the financial crisis, moreover, why would we want judges being "proactive participant[s] in the regulatory system"? Consider the Supreme Court. Nine old farts with hardly a day of business experience between them. Each has a staff of just four (I think) wet behind the ears law clerks who probably took all con law courses. I dare say there's nobody in the Supreme Court building who could tell you the difference between a CSO and a CBO. They simply don't have the expertise available that Congress and the regulatory bodies possess.

And, of course, the judiciary is the least accountable branch. If you're going to be in a position to plunge the entire world economy into a depression, you ought to be democratically accountable.

I'm not sure I disagree.  Legal scholars often focus on courts, which leads me to occasionally post (and write) often about how small a part of the legal picture they are (I say this with all modesty - I could be entirely wrong).  Whether you think this is ideal or detrimental depends on whether you think that as an institutional matter, courts are likely to help or hurt.  I spend much of my scholarly life ignoring them, so I would probably suggest that they can neither help nor hurt much in almost any particular matter in which I have an interest.  But there's no question that for some things they matter, it's just that for things like international economic law and financial regulation, they don't so much.  And I suspect the category of stuff for which they really do matter is smaller than most people think.

I suppose there's an implicit "and that's not so bad" in there.  In that, Bainbridge and I could probably write a majority opinion on a three blogger panel.

Full post as published by Conglomerate on July 01, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0021 secs (from cache 11/03/26 19:51:17)