Result-Oriented vs. Rule of Law

TWO SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT

Though presented as a contest between Democratic and Republican candidates, Texas Supreme Court races are often a battle between different judicial philosophies. Although it is difficult to fit these philosophies into simple categories, the two predominant approaches to the law might be characterized as “result-oriented” or “rule of law.”

Whether a judicial candidate adheres to one or the other approach has little to do with the candidate’s political party affiliation. Rather, it is a question of how the candidate perceives the function and purpose of the law, and his of her own role in formulating the law.

“Result-oriented” judges tend to take an expansive view of the law. They may be more likely to fashion new legal remedies to meet perceived injustices or to expand the ability of one party to recover damages against another. Result-oriented judges also believe that judges should play an important role in shaping public policy. Consequently, they may interpret the state constitution or laws passed by the legislature in order to achieve specific policy goals, with or without regard to the stated or implied “intent” of the law.

“Rule of law” judges, on the other hand, tend to view expansion of the law with caution. They value stability and consistency in the law and are likely to place great weight on prior case decisions establishing legal precedent. These judges are also more likely to defer to the legislature where broad questions of public policy are concerned. They may thus be less inclined to read new meanings into legislative statutes or the state constitution than are result-oriented judges.

No single judicial candidate falls conveniently into one category or the other. Historically, judicial codes of ethics have prohibited candidates from discussing their views on specific cases or issues that might come before the court, making it difficult for voters to determine the candidate’s approach to the law. The United States Supreme Court, however, has ruled that candidates for judicial office have a constitutional right to discuss their personal views on matters within the court’s purview, but many judicial candidates continue to decline to do so for fear of creating the appearance of bias.

But judicial candidates are not prohibited from discussing their general philosophies about the law. Their legal backgrounds and the types of attorneys and interest groups who support them may also hold important clues about their judicial inclinations. And although political party affiliation does not predict judicial decision-making, it may give voters a general idea of the candidate’s political allegiances in a broad sense.