Are judges supposed to be objective? Citizens, scholars, and legal professionals commonly assume that subjectivity and objectivity are opposites, with the corollary that subjectivity is a vice and objectivity is a virtue. These assumptions underlie passionate debates over adherence to original intent and judicial activism.
In Common Law Judging, Douglas Edlin challenges these widely held assumptions by reorienting the entire discussion. Rather than analyze judging in terms of objectivity and truth, he argues that we should instead approach the role of a judge’s individual perspective in terms of intersubjectivity and validity. Drawing upon Kantian aesthetic theory as well as case law, legal theory, and constitutional theory, Edlin develops a new conceptual framework for the respective roles of the individual judge and of the judiciary as an institution, as well as the relationship between them, as integral parts of the broader legal and political community. Specifically, Edlin situates a judge’s subjective responses within a form of legal reasoning and reflective judgment that must be communicated to different audiences.
Edlin concludes that the individual values and perspectives of judges are indispensable both to their judgments in specific cases and to the independence of the courts. According to the common law tradition, judicial subjectivity is a virtue, not a vice.
"I have just finished reading Common Law Judging
. It is an excellent read; it informs me about myself and my work very well."
— Avern Cohn, Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan
“This book challenges the dichotomy between judicial objectivity as virtue and subjectivity as vice; for Edlin, the intersubjectivity of judges, litigators, and legal practitioners increases the legitimacy of courts and the legal process. The theme development, writing, and subtlety of analysis of an extraordinary range of cases and scholarly works are superb. This book is ‘must’ reading for scholars of the common law, jurisprudence, and legal history, as well as of the Supreme Court, lesser courts, and law and social change.”
— Ronald Kahn, Oberlin College
“Common Law Judging
provides a sophisticated and thoughtful account of how judging differs from legislating. Edlin clarifies that our political debates over judicial activism wrongly portray judging as either mechanical or political. Instead, by carefully demonstrating the way in which judging is intersubjective and incremental, constrained by common law traditions and practices, Edlin offers strong reasons to resist the political temptation to undermine judicial independence. Edlin’s rich philosophical argument draws on Kant’s Third Critique to explicate the sense in which judges’ decisions can be both affective and impartial.”
— Linda Meyer, Quinnipiac University
“Edlin offers a much-needed examination of some of the critical assumptions about objectivity that distort conventional assessments of proper judging. One needn’t be persuaded by all of his arguments to profit from the discussion. His analysis of judicial independence is a highlight.”
—Tara A. Smith, University of Texas at Austin