Schools of legal interpretation.
When asked to apply the law, judges are often required to interpret the meaning or purpose of the law to give it the effect intended by the legislature when it was passed. This is especially important in cases where the facts of the case require the court to apply laws that may be conflicting and the court must balance the competing interests and choose the right one. For the following legal conflicts, identify which of the six schools of thought would help the Court reach the best decision:
a. Judge asked to recognize a gay partner s status as a surviving spouse, even though state law does not recognize same-sex marriage. State which school of thought would allow the judge to recognize a same-sex partner as a surviving spouse, define that school of thought and explain why it applies to this set of facts. Also state, define, and explain which school of thought would not allow the judge to recognize a same-sex partner as a surviving spouse.
Judge rules for Ohio same sex couple
b. Judge asked to decide a death penalty case, even though he is personally opposed to the death penalty as contrary to his religious beliefs. State which school of thought would cause the judge to apply the death penalty, define that school of thought, and explain why it applies to this set of facts. Also, state, define and explain which school of thought would cause the judge to set aside the death penalty because of strong personal beliefs.
Montgomery County Common Pleas Judge A. J. Wagner has asked to be excused from the case of Cody Henderson, 20, indicted on three counts of aggravated murder.
c. Judge asked to determine if prosecutors can refuse to enforce immigration laws against minor offenders. (This article is about adults who committed minor criminal offenses, and not minor children. The prosecutors want to focus on serious criminal offenders.)
Judge: Obama administration can't refuse to arrest illegal immigrants.