Law and society: Myth of the Robe

Law and society
Insert name:
Institutional affiliation:
Due date:
Traditionally, judicial branch has been viewed as a different standpoint from legislative and excutive braches. According to the Myth of the Robe, legislative and executive branches are political entities while judicial branch and judges are nonpolitical interpreters of the law (Lippman, 2015). Based on a question concerning who should interpret the implication of the constitution, it is identified that members of the legislative and executive branches are much involved in issues regarding politics. The Myth of the Robe considers judges as true nonpolitical interpreters of the law. The focus of this study is to explain why the Myth of the Robe recommends that judges should eliminate their personal preferences from the ruling decisions, and why legal scholars claims that judges are shaped or influenced by their personal preferences. The paper also explains what, if anything, stops judges from imposing their will upon society, and under what circumstances can a court utilize its decision to prompt societal and legal change.
The Myth of the Robe expects judges to abandon their personal preferences when determining ruling outcomes because judges are defenders of justice and they have commitment to deliver impartial and objective rulings without personal prejudice or party bias. Lippman (2015) says that once judges become corrupted, their judgments reflect mere interests or passions of magistrate, but not the true magistrate of the law. In this way, the court stops being the conservator of the law, and the law itself is corrupted into mockery. Independent judges are required to set aside their personal interests, prejudices or passions but to follow the rule of the law. They are expected to remain integrated into the legal foundation’s traditional origin (Myth of the Robe) of the role which the judiciary performs in American government since antiquity, and this is to defend justice by forming impartial rulings without being shaped by personal biases or interests. However, this assumption has faced criticism by legal scholars, thus influence the need to question whether there is adequate truth to the Myth of the Robe to make it significant and justifiable or whether a new time has evolved to demythologize both the conception of the Myth of the Robe and the understanding of the function that judges carry out, and admit the truth that the Myth of the Robe is a mere glorified weasel.
Based on the Myth of the Robe, judges make rulings by eliminating extraneous influences and abide by the law and relevant facts. Legal doctrine is essential when de...