Who Is To Judge

A church that has made its peace with the world can no longer affect it! As 21st century Christians, we have settled down to a complacent form of faith that demands very little of us, and thus makes very little impact on the world. When secular values infiltrate the church, we accept them without a twinge of conscience and congratulate ourselves on our tolerance. We believe that we no longer have the right to challenge secular trends and decisions, in or out of the church. Erwin Lutzer looks at today's world, and confronts us with our responsibility, as believers in the church of Jesus Christ, to again be a force for what is right...not easy.

An elected judiciary is virtually unique to the American experience and creates a paradox in a representative democracy. Elected judges take an oath to uphold the law impartially, which calls upon them to swear off the influence of the very constituencies they must cultivate in order to attain and retain judicial office. This paradox has given rise to perennially shrill and unproductive binary arguments over the merits and demerits of elected and appointed judiciaries, which this project seeks to transcend and reimagine. In Who Is to Judge?, judicial politics expert Charles Gardner Geyh exposes and explains the overstatements of both sides in the judicial selection debate. When those exaggerations are understood as such, it becomes possible to search for common ground and its limits. Ultimately, this search leads Geyh to conclude that, while appointive systems are a preferable default, no one system of selection is best for all jurisdictions at all times.

The sin of judging and the error of legalism cause many of the interpersonal conflicts we experience as believers. Plaguing many of our Christian institutions, from churches to schools to families, these problems sap our spiritual strength and weaken the work of God in our midst.This helpful book defines judging and legalism in a biblical manner and discusses two often-overlooked biblical commands: do not pass judgment before the time and do not exceed what is written (1 Cor. 4:5-6). Learning to identify and avoid these problems will help promote peace and joy in the body of Christ and release believers to serve God in the freedom of his grace! All Christians have, at one time or another, borne the brunt of inappropriate judging and the burden of legalism and will welcome this book.

"Don't be so judgmental!" "Why are Christians so intolerant?" "Why can't we just coexist?" In an age in which preference has replaced morality, many people find it difficult to speak the truth, afraid of the reactions they will receive if they say something is right or wrong. Using engaging stories and personal experience, Edward Sri helps us understand the classical view of morality and equips us to engage relativism, appealing to both the head and the heart. Learn how Catholic morality is all about love, why making a judgment is not judging a person's soul, and why, in the words of Pope Francis, "relativism wounds people." Topics include: • Real Freedom, Real Love • Sharing truth with compassion • Why "I disagree" doesn't mean "I hate you"

God invites us to judge and to help correct wrongs from a place of understanding. Sometimes we pre-judge a person based on our own biases and superficial experiences. We stifle dialog before the conversation even begins. If all we know is our own faith, and we never put it side-by-side with what others believe, our spiritual growth and commitments can be easily stunted. By truly listening and learning from those with different beliefs, we can broaden and deepen our kingdom commitments. It is possible to stand up for Jesus, to articulate our faith clearly as witnesses, and to defend our faith effectively, while at the same time not being perceived as judgmental. Christians need to be faithful witnesses to God who are willing to listen to people with drastically different stories. In those exchanges, when we suspend judgment and truly listen, we will find truth and beauty and goodness in some of the most unexpected places. We will also find that, if we truly listen, we may be given a chance to speak. Features include: Help for interfaith and intercultural dialog Thought-provoking questions for spiritual conversation or reflection

A distinguished and experienced appellate court judge, Richard A. Posner offers in this new book a unique and, to orthodox legal thinkers, a startling perspective on how judges and justices decide cases. When conventional legal materials enable judges to ascertain the true facts of a case and apply clear pre-existing legal rules to them, Posner argues, they do so straightforwardly; that is the domain of legalist reasoning. However, in non-routine cases, the conventional materials run out and judges are on their own, navigating uncharted seas with equipment consisting of experience, emotions, and often unconscious beliefs. In doing so, they take on a legislative role, though one that is confined by internal and external constraints, such as professional ethics, opinions of respected colleagues, and limitations imposed by other branches of government on freewheeling judicial discretion. Occasional legislators, judges are motivated by political considerations in a broad and sometimes a narrow sense of that term. In that open area, most American judges are legal pragmatists. Legal pragmatism is forward-looking and policy-based. It focuses on the consequences of a decision in both the short and the long term, rather than on its antecedent logic. Legal pragmatism so understood is really just a form of ordinary practical reasoning, rather than some special kind of legal reasoning. Supreme Court justices are uniquely free from the constraints on ordinary judges and uniquely tempted to engage in legislative forms of adjudication. More than any other court, the Supreme Court is best understood as a political court.

This book offers a well-balanced introduction to a broad range of ethical issues. Policy issues are used as a pivotal point for applying ethical theory to current moral problems.

A judge’s role is to make decisions. This book is about how judges undertake this task. It is about forces on the judicial role and their consequences, about empirical research from a variety of academic disciplines that observes and verifies how factors can affect how judges judge. On the one hand, judges decide by interpreting and applying the law, but much more affects judicial decision-making: psychological effects, group dynamics, numerical reasoning, biases, court processes, influences from political and other institutions, and technological advancement. All can have a bearing on judicial outcomes. In How Judges Judge: Empirical Insights into Judicial Decision-Making, Brian M. Barry explores how these factors, beyond the law, affect judges in their role. Case examples, judicial rulings, judges’ own self-reflections on their role and accounts from legal history complement this analysis to contextualise the research, make it more accessible and enrich the reader’s understanding and appreciation of judicial decision-making. Offering research-based insights into how judges make the decisions that can impact daily life and societies around the globe, this book will be of interest to practising and training judges, litigation lawyers and those studying law and related disciplines.

In Reflections on Judging, Richard Posner distills the experience of his thirty-one years as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Surveying how the judiciary has changed since his 1981 appointment, he engages the issues at stake today, suggesting how lawyers should argue cases and judges decide them, how trials can be improved, and, most urgently, how to cope with the dizzying pace of technological advance that makes litigation ever more challenging to judges and lawyers. For Posner, legal formalism presents one of the main obstacles to tackling these problems. Formalist judges--most notably Justice Antonin Scalia--needlessly complicate the legal process by advocating "canons of constructions" (principles for interpreting statutes and the Constitution) that are confusing and self-contradictory. Posner calls instead for a renewed commitment to legal realism, whereby a good judge gathers facts, carefully considers context, and comes to a sensible conclusion that avoids inflicting collateral damage on other areas of the law. This, Posner believes, was the approach of the jurists he most admires and seeks to emulate: Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis, Benjamin Cardozo, Learned Hand, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly, and it is an approach that can best resolve our twenty-first-century legal disputes.

Whether examining election outcomes, the legal status of terrorism suspects, or if (or how) people can be sentenced to death, a judge in a modern democracy assumes a role that raises some of the most contentious political issues of our day. But do judges even have a role beyond deciding the disputes before them under law? What are the criteria for judging the justices who write opinions for the United States Supreme Court or constitutional courts in other democracies? These are the questions that one of the world's foremost judges and legal theorists, Aharon Barak, poses in this book. In fluent prose, Barak sets forth a powerful vision of the role of the judge. He argues that this role comprises two central elements beyond dispute resolution: bridging the gap between the law and society, and protecting the constitution and democracy. The former involves balancing the need to adapt the law to social change against the need for stability; the latter, judges' ultimate accountability, not to public opinion or to politicians, but to the "internal morality" of democracy. Barak's vigorous support of "purposive interpretation" (interpreting legal texts--for example, statutes and constitutions--in light of their purpose) contrasts sharply with the influential "originalism" advocated by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. As he explores these questions, Barak also traces how supreme courts in major democracies have evolved since World War II, and he guides us through many of his own decisions to show how he has tried to put these principles into action, even under the burden of judging on terrorism.