Further Explanation
Legal realism operates on a premise that is adhered to, often unwittingly, by most laymen and many who have legal training: that "the law," whatever that may be, is concerned with and is intrinsically tied to the real-world outcomes of particular cases. Accepting this premise moves jurisprudence, or the study of law in the abstract, away from hypothetical predictions and closer to empirical reflections of fact.
Proponents of legal realism say it is not concerned with what the law should, or "ought to" be, but that legal realism simply seeks to describe what the law is. Proponents of legal formalism disagree, saying that "law" is what is commanded by a lawgiver, that judges are not lawgivers, and that what judges do, while it might belong to the field of law, is not "law" but legal practice.
Read more about this topic: Legal Realism
Famous quotes containing the word explanation:
“Auden, MacNeice, Day Lewis, I have read them all,
Hoping against hope to hear the authentic call . . .
And know the explanation I must pass is this
MYou cannot light a match on a crumbling wall.”
—Hugh MacDiarmid (1892–1978)
“Are cans constitutionally iffy? Whenever, that is, we say that we can do something, or could do something, or could have done something, is there an if in the offing—suppressed, it may be, but due nevertheless to appear when we set out our sentence in full or when we give an explanation of its meaning?”
—J.L. (John Langshaw)