THE DEPTH REQUIRED IN JUDICIAL LEGAL REASONING

 

                                         Chief Justice, John Marshall, Portrait © Library of Congress. USA.

In all forms of Court legal reasoning, which commence from the ‘Bench’, on basis of legal controversies or ‘cases at Bar’, especially, the appellate Court legal decisions, are highly exalted in Law Books, as the final arbiter in case law development. And in the rudiments of case law, the decisions of the ‘Supreme Court’, is considered as the finest of the Common –Law doctrine, and sovereignty, to any case law developed, in the field of that case analysis, unless such decisions are overturned, per the circumstantial changes of factors to time, for such a case or similar of it kind. What grants such distinctive prowess to the outcome of the Courts decisions, and Judicial Powers? Is never merely ‘common sense’ in evaluating the law cum interpretations, which seems to be a common notion of first degree legal practitioners at Bar, and the perception of Social media journalists, about the Law, and Judicial reasoning, on matters of legal controversies.

 

The reputation of the Bench, and the Power of the Court, depends on these two major Principles outlined below, which has to be protected by Judges, under oaths at any given jurisdiction. And they are;

i. The Law being boldly asserted, and plausibly maintained.

ii. The Enforcement power of the Court decisions, within it jurisdiction.

 

In other to achieve these two principles, as stated above, the courts decisions are required to carefully follow, a set-out procedural rules, which considers in-depth analysis of circumstantial factors, and comparative case-study, to uphold the doctrine of ‘stare decisis’, then, with deep understanding, and appreciation to the invisible political interest, and forces at play, as well, the constitutional powers, and it limitations, which, the Judges holds as a Court, before other arms of government, in relation to a given case, with the ultimate purpose, to entrench execution of orders by the Courts, without antagonism and reputation struggle.

 

Furthermore, the consideration of the decisions of the Court, as a bearing on socio-economic implications, towards prevailing circumstance, as well to future policy, and the aim to plausible maintained the law, while defending the powers and reputation of the Judicial arm of Government, the Supreme Court of certain jurisdictions, has carefully established the scope of Judicial review, in accordance to their Constitutional mandate, to guide ‘when’, as well ‘why’ and ‘how’ to assume authority, to intervene in legal controversies of constitutional concerns, in a manner to avoid the ‘enforcement power’ of the Court, into a political ridicule, by other arms of government.

 A classic example to such cases, is ‘Marbury vs. Madison’, thus, analyzing the strings of political forces, as circumstance around the case, in the year (1801); Robert G. McCloskey wrote in his work, and I quote him;

“ the decision of the Courts, was a masterwork of indirection, a brilliant presentation of the Chief Justice John Marshall’s capacity, to sides-step danger, while seeming to Court it, to advance in one direction, while his opponents were looking in another.”

 

This was an event, exhibited in wisdom, of the exemplary legal reasoning skills, of the John Marshall Court (1779–1835), considered as the keystone of the American constitutional law-arch, as James A. Garfield posits,

 

“Marshall found the constitutional papers; and he made it power.”

 

The Chief Justice, John Marshall was brilliant to know ‘when’ and ‘how’ to insulate the reputation of the Courts, from external danger, emanating from other arms of government, by upholding to the principles of Justiciability doctrine, and how to exert the powers of the Courts, in it full enforceable strength, to a right timing.

 

 

[Reference]

1. Madison, The Emergency of a ‘Great Case’ 38 Wake Forest L. Rev. 375 (2003).

2. Robert  G. McCloskey, The American Supreme Court, 40 (1960).

3. William D. Pederson and Norman W. Provizer, Great Justice of the U.S Supreme Court, 3 (1993).

4. Senzu, T. E., Complex Judicial decisions: To Judge between the law and public Choices. Blackstone Journal for Asia-Africa Jurists  Research Paper No. 47. Vol.9, (2026). ISSN: 1556-5068.

 

-----------------------------------------------------

†Emmanuel Tweneboah Senzu, professor of Constitutional Law and Economic Criminology, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Provo, Utah, USA. A Cross-Departmental fellow, University of Ghana, and the Central University Faculty of Law, Ghana. Africa.