Research Paper on:
Understanding Judicial Reasoning Controversies, Concepts, and Cases by Roland Case

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
should be left up to personal interpretation and how much should be followed to the letter? Indeed, the extent to which contemporary judges impart their own legal perception is  part and parcel to what Case (1997) attempts to tackle within the pages of his insightful account. Particularly interesting is how the author addresses three distinctive methods of reasoning  that serve to define the decision-making processes of todays legal system, which include reasoning from interpretive guidelines; reasoning from prior cases; and reasoning from principle. Case (1997), who argues that  "a rule-governed account of judicial reasoning represents faithfully what is generally regarded as authorized judicial practice" (p. PG) illustrates that the legal system is an entity comprised of individual  human beings who attest to provide protection for the masses. This may be true in theory but the truth of the matter is that the courts have gained far  too much influence over peoples lives in their ongoing quest for civil harmony. "...The federal courts, composed of unelected judges, are the least democratic branch of government, and that  judges should not get involved in political questions or conflicts between the other two branches" (Anonymous, 2002). When employing reasoning from principle, jurists find that the letter of the  law does not fit the case in question; as such, the jurist must settle disputes that are unable to be resolved framers law by "evaluating proposed principles in light of  the broader constellation of legal standards" (Case, 1997, p. PG). Sometimes, however, this is deemed as nothing short of unconstitutional. Restraint activists  contend that it has come to the point where the judicial process has turned into more of an enemy than a savior; this fact is easily proven by any number