What should a judge do when he must hand down a ruling based on a law that he considers unjust or oppressive? This question is examined through a series of problems concerning unjust law that arose... This description may be from another edition of this product.
I studied this book in law school. I think the central question of this book is a little deeper than the way the previous reviewer phrased it. The book explores the conflict that occurs when a judge perceives that the law applying to a case before him is not a just one and will result in injustice if applied in the current case. Does the judge simply apply the law, or find some way around it to allow for a just result? This is an interesting question today, given the debate between "strict construction" of the Constitution and Holmes' popular notion that the Constitution is a "living document" whose interpretation must evolve with the times. The chief example used in this book is the infamous Dred Scott decision, in which a slave who had lived for many years on free soil, sued for his freedom, but was turned down by the Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds -- although presumably the judges knew that this was not a just result.
One of my favorite book
Published by Thriftbooks.com User , 24 years ago
Justice Accused addresses why antebellum judges who opposed slavery nonetheless felt powerless to do any thing but enforce it.
ThriftBooks sells millions of used books at the lowest everyday prices. We personally assess every book's quality and offer rare, out-of-print treasures. We deliver the joy of reading in recyclable packaging with free standard shipping on US orders over $15. ThriftBooks.com. Read more. Spend less.