最新提问
我的动态
登录后查看动态
题目内容双击单词支持查询和收藏哦～
题目材料：
In the 1920s, the Legal Realists, a group of constitutional scholars, challenged "formalism," the then-dominant style of legal reasoning in the United States. Proponents of formalism, believing that neither personal experiences nor a case's social implications should shape a judge's ruling, urged judges to decide difficult new cases by applying to such cases general principles deduced from the decisions of previous courts in similar instances. Legal Realists insisted that judges'decisions were influenced by the social implications of a decision and by life experiences the latter inevitably coloring judges' perceptions of a case's parties and witnesses and thus of its "facts, and that the legal principles derivable from previous decisions in similar instances were so inconsistent that such principles were likely to result in very different rulings. Thus, Legal Realists argued that legal principles, to be meaningful and useful, could not be general and abstract, but must instead refer to specific circumstances. Principles appropriate to deciding one case involving contracts might not be for another because contracts are entered into and enforced in widely different circumstances.
· 相关考点
事实信息题
以上解析由 考满分老师提供。
