The Persistent Cultural Script of Judicial Dispassion

The Persistent Cultural Script of Judicial Dispassion

In contemporary Western jurisprudence it is never appropriate for emotion””anger, love, hatred, sadness, disgust, fear, joy””to affect judicial decision making. A good judge should feel no emotion; if she does, she puts it aside. To call a judge emotional is a stinging insult, signifying a failure of discipline, impartiality, and reason.

Insistence on judicial dispassion is a cultural script of unusual longevity and potency. But not only is the script wrong as a matter of human nature””emotion does not, in fact, invariably tend toward sloppiness, bias, and irrationality””it is also not quite so monolithic as it appears. Legal theorists, and judges themselves, sometimes have asserted that judicial emotion is inevitable and, perhaps, to be welcomed. But these dissents have neither eroded the script’s power nor blossomed into a robust theory of how emotion might coexist with, or even contribute to, judicial decision making. Close examination of this hidden intellectual history reveals why. Scholars and judges consistently have stumbled over foundational questions of emotion’s nature and value. Fortunately, the history reveals cures as well as causes. We can move forward by way of disciplined, sustained recourse to a newly vibrant emotional epistemology, a project that will create a distinct space for the story of judicial emotion.



More in this Issue

Debating the Causes of Party Polarization in America

It has only been a decade, but the mood in America since the new millennium has largely been one of anger and disenchantment. This decade began with a disputed presidential election, followed by 9/11, two wars, a bad economy, and numerous natural disasters that have captured the public imagination. Pundits from the right and left […]

Beyond Experience: Getting Retributive Justice Right

How central should hedonic adaptation be to the establishment of sentencing policy? In earlier work, Professors Bronsteen, Buccafusco, and Masur (BBM) drew some normative significance from the psychological studies of adaptability for punishment policy. In particular, they argued that retributivists and utilitarians alike are obliged on pain of inconsistency to take account of the fact […]

Maintaining Health Laboratories of Experimentation: Federalism, Health Care Reform, and ERISA

In this Comment, we demonstrate the ingenuity of San Francisco’s Health Care Security Ordinance and explain why local experimentation with health care solutions is an invaluable component of America’s ongoing efforts to solve the national health care crisis. We then analyze the Golden Gate Restaurant Association’s legal challenge to the Ordinance, which argues that the […]

Reassessing the Role of the National Research Council: Peer Review, Political Tool, or Science Court

In recent years, Congress and executive agencies have increasingly turned to the National Research Council (NRC) to defuse environmental regulatory controversies. This heightened reliance on regulatory peer review raises important questions for administrative law. As the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most well-respected institutions in the United States, the […]

The Rise and Fall of the Implied Warrant of Habitability

Growing concern about poverty in the late 1960s produced two sweeping legal revolutions. One gave welfare recipients specific legal rights against arbitrary eligibility rules and benefit terminations. The other gave low-income tenants recourse when landlords failed to repair their homes. The 1996 welfare law exposed the welfare rights revolution’s frailty by ending Aid to Families […]

Moderation and Coherence in American Democracy

If Professor Pildes is correct, American democracy is in long-term, serious trouble. Our political system “over the last generation has had one defining attribute: the rise of extreme partisan polarization.”1This “hyperpartisanship”2 is not just caused by “divisive political elites and leaders,”3 but is a reflection of the “poisonous party polarization”4 of the electorate itself, the […]

The Limits of Electoral and Legislative Reform in Addressing Polarization

Professor Richard Pildes provides a very thorough and persuasive overview of the key arguments about the causes of partisan polarization in the United States. I am especially sympathetic to his argument that deep macro- historical factors such as the partisan alignment of the South””rather than idiosyncratic events, elections, and personalities””bare the primary blame. But I […]

What Pildes Missed: The Framers, the True Impact of the Voting Rights Act, and the Far Right

I commend Professor Richard Pildes for offering such a creative and cogent discussion of polarization in contemporary American political life. I especially appreciate that he has brought such a calm, dispassionate, and admirably scholarly tone to a discussion that is too often””well, polarized. Yet I do wonder if in the effort to find a stable […]

Why the Center Does Not Hold: The Causes of Hyperpolarized Democracy in America

Politics as partisan warfare: that is our world. Over the last generation, American democracy has had one defining attribute: extreme partisan polarization. We have not seen the intensity of political conflict and the radical separation between the two major political parties that characterizes our age since the late nineteenth century. Within Congress, the parties have […]