What is the role of judges in reviewing laws?

OCR: 10 cited passage(s) are machine-read (OCR) text of old printings; quotations reproduce the stored OCR text, misreadings included.

1. WHAT HE SAID (the record)

Record ledger

• BELIEF (undated): James Wilson believed that judges should not be compelled to give their opinions on questions and doubts in law upon the sudden, but should determine such questions after consideration and conference. He argued that the law should not compel jurors to take upon them the knowledge of points in law, and that the truth of the facts should be found first. [1]
• BELIEF (undated): James Wilson believed that judges should determine the law, not the facts, and that the determination of law belongs exclusively to the judges when there is no contention concerning the facts. This is based on his reference to Lord Hardwicke's assertion about the distinct powers of judges and jury. (key quote above) [2]
• BELIEF (undated): James Wilson believed that judges should not be influenced by policy considerations when interpreting laws, as this could lead to tyranny and injustice. He argued that if judges are also involved in making laws or executing them, their decisions may be arbitrary and driven by personal opinions rather than fixed legal principles. "Nothing is more to be dreaded than maxims of law and reasons of state blended together by judicial authority." [3]
• BELIEF (undated): James Wilson believed that judges are the judges of the law, and that juries are only judges of the fact. He supported this belief by referencing the trial of John Lilburne and the statements made by Mr. Justice Jermin and Lord Commissioner Keble. "Let all the hearers know, the jury ought to take notice of it, that the judges, that are sworn, that are twelve in number, they have ever been the judges of the law, from the first time that ever we can read or hear that the law was truly expressed in England" [4]
• BELIEF (undated): James Wilson believed that when law and fact are closely interwoven, judges must inform the jury about the law, and the jury must pay much regard to that information. However, in cases where law and fact cannot be clearly separated, the jury may decide upon the law. "When this is the case, it is incumbent on the judges to inform the jury concerning the law ; and it is incumbent on the jury to pay much i^gard to the information, which they i-eceive fwm the judges." [5]
• BELIEF (undated): James Wilson believed that judges have a duty to inform juries about the law when law and fact are closely intertwined, and that juries should pay much regard to this information. He argued that when law and fact are closely interwoven, the decision of one necessarily involves the decision of the other. [6]
• BELIEF (undated): James Wilson believed that judges should inform juries about the law when questions of law are blended with questions of fact, and that juries should pay much regard to this information. [7]
• BELIEF (undated): James Wilson records a belief that judges are the judges of the law, and that juries are only judges of matters of fact. This is shown through the argument and statements made during the trial of Mr. Lilburne, where it is emphasized that the jury's role is limited to facts, not law. [8]
• BELIEF (undated): James Wilson believed that judges are responsible for answering questions of law, not questions of fact, which are the responsibility of juries. He argued that a judgment is a declaration of the law by the court, while a verdict is a declaration of fact by the jury. [9]
• BELIEF (undated): James Wilson believed that judges have the responsibility to pronounce a just judgment and must diligently weigh and examine what is said by the jury to ensure they are not misled by the jury's mistakes. "as it belongs to the judges to pronounce a just judgment, it is incumbent on them diligently to weigh and examine what is said by the jury, that they themselves may not be misled by the jury's mistakes." [10]

What cuts against it

• The contrary-evidence entries are already in the record ledger above: [1].

2. HOW IT APPLIES (reasoning; inference is marked)

1. James Wilson believed that judges are responsible for determining the law, not the facts. This is based on his reference to Lord Hardwicke's assertion about the distinct powers of judges and juries.

2. He argued that when law and fact are closely intertwined, judges must inform the jury about the law, and the jury must pay much regard to that information.

3. Wilson emphasized that judges should not be influenced by policy considerations when interpreting laws, as this could lead to tyranny and injustice.

4. He believed that the role of judges is to interpret and apply the law, not to make it. Judicial decisions should be considered strong evidence of the law, and judges should rely on authority and precedent in the common law.

5. Wilson also believed that judges should not be compelled to give their opinions on questions and doubts in law upon the sudden, but should determine such questions after consideration and conference. This suggests a cautious and deliberate approach to legal interpretation.

3. HIS TAKE

Record coverage: PARTIAL

The record is silent on the specific role of judges in reviewing laws in the context of constitutional interpretation or judicial review. However, it is clear that Wilson believed judges are responsible for interpreting and applying the law, not making it. He emphasized the importance of judicial decisions as evidence of the law and the need for judges to rely on authority and precedent.

Extrapolation: James Wilson likely believed that judges should interpret and apply laws based on established legal principles and precedent, without being influenced by policy considerations. He would have emphasized the importance of judicial decisions as strong evidence of the law and the need for judges to act with caution and deliberation.

Competing readings: One reading is that Wilson believed judges should strictly interpret and apply the law without personal influence. Another reading is that he believed in a more cautious and deliberate approach to legal interpretation, emphasizing the need for judicial decisions to be based on established legal principles and precedent. The record itself supports the latter reading, as it emphasizes the need for judges to consider authority and precedent.

Confidence: Moderate. The record provides clear statements about the role of judges in interpreting and applying the law, but it is silent on the specific role of judges in reviewing laws in the context of constitutional interpretation or judicial review. The confidence is moderate due to the partial coverage of the question in the record.