IANAL, but as I understand it, in the US, unless you’re in a fairly high level appellate court, judges have lots of freedom in how they handle minor issues and manage their courtrooms, but very limited degrees of freedom in interpreting deeper legal issues. I think they also mostly have to work within the bounds of the evidence that lawyers, who are used to non-rationalist judges and juries, decide to present to them. I think it would be fascinating to think about how a judge with rationalist training and thinking styles might write their decisions and opinions differently, though.
Anyone who lives under a civil law system or inquisitorial system instead of a common law one, or under any other kind of legal system that’s out there, I’d be very curious to hear from.
IANAL, but as I understand it, in the US, unless you’re in a fairly high level appellate court, judges have lots of freedom in how they handle minor issues and manage their courtrooms, but very limited degrees of freedom in interpreting deeper legal issues. I think they also mostly have to work within the bounds of the evidence that lawyers, who are used to non-rationalist judges and juries, decide to present to them. I think it would be fascinating to think about how a judge with rationalist training and thinking styles might write their decisions and opinions differently, though.
Anyone who lives under a civil law system or inquisitorial system instead of a common law one, or under any other kind of legal system that’s out there, I’d be very curious to hear from.