"Legal formalism is both a descriptive theory and a normative theory of how judges should decide cases."
The view that the application of law should be based solely on a strict interpretation of legal texts, such as the constitution, statutes, and case law.
Legal positivism: This is the view that the law is a set of rules that are created by human beings, and that these rules have no inherent connection to morality or justice. Legal formalism is closely connected to legal positivism.
The Rule of Law: This is the idea that laws should be applied to everyone in the same way and that the law should be predictable and stable. Legal formalism is often associated with the rule of law, as formalists argue that the law should be applied in a consistent and predictable manner.
Constitutionalism: This is the idea that government power should be limited by a constitution. Legal formalism is often associated with constitutionalism, as formalists argue that the interpretation of the constitution should be based on its original meaning.
Originalism: This is the view that the meaning of a law or constitution should be based on the intentions of its drafters. Legal formalism is often associated with originalism, as formalists argue that the meaning of a law should be determined by its plain text and the original intention of its drafters.
Formalism vs. Realism: This is the debate in philosophy of law about whether the law is a product of social norms, or whether it is an objective set of rules that exist independently of individual beliefs. Legal formalism is often contrasted with legal realism, which emphasizes the importance of social norms and context in legal decision-making.
Legal reasoning: This is the process of interpreting and applying the law to specific cases. Legal formalism is often associated with formalistic legal reasoning, which emphasizes the importance of rules and logical consistency in decision-making.
Legal formalism and ethics: This is the question of whether the law can be divorced from ethical considerations. Legal formalists argue that the law should be based on objective, logical rules, while some critics argue that this approach ignores the moral implications of legal decisions.
Criticisms of Legal formalism: This is the examination of the criticisms that have been leveled against legal formalism. Some critics argue that this approach is overly rigid and ignores the social and historical context in which laws are created and applied.
Traditional Legal Formalism: This theory argues that legal decisions should be made based solely on traditional legal rules and procedures, without considering social or political context.
Pure Legal Formalism: This theory posits that legal reasoning is a purely deductive process where the outcomes of legal disputes can be determined by a logical deduction of accepted legal rules and principles.
Semantic Legal Formalism: This theory asserts that the meaning of legal concepts is fixed, and that judicial decisions should be based on the meanings of the relevant legal terms.
Moderate Legal Formalism: This theory stresses the importance of legal rules and procedures, but also recognizes that social, political, and economic contexts can influence legal decision making.
Institutional Legal Formalism: This theory sees legal institutions as critical to the justification of legal decisions, and places strong emphasis on the institutional legitimacy of legal reasoning and decision-making.
Rule-Based Legal Formalism: This theory suggests that legal decisions should be based on clear, unambiguous legal rules, which can be applied in a consistent and principled manner.
Empirical Legal Formalism: This theory combines formalist and realist approaches to legal reasoning, recognizing the importance of rules and procedures while also acknowledging the empirical realities of legal decision-making.
"Formalists maintain that judges reach their decisions by applying uncontroversial principles to the facts."
"Formalists believe that there is an underlying logic to the many legal principles that may be applied in different cases."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. believed that "The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience."
"The formalist era is generally viewed as having existed from the 1870s to the 1920s."
"Some scholars deny that legal formalism ever existed in practice."
"The ultimate goal of legal formalism would be to describe the underlying principles in a single and determinate system that could be applied mechanically."
"The antithesis of formalism is legal realism."
"Legal realism has been said to be '[p]erhaps the most pervasive and accepted theory of how judges arrive at legal decisions.'"
"Sound legal decisions can be justified as the conclusions of valid deductive syllogisms."
"Legal formalism is both a descriptive theory and a normative theory of how judges should decide cases."
"Formalists maintain that judges reach their decisions by applying uncontroversial principles to the facts."
"The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience." - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
"The formalist era is generally viewed as having existed from the 1870s to the 1920s."
"Some scholars deny that legal formalism ever existed in practice."
"The ultimate goal of legal formalism would be to describe the underlying principles in a single and determinate system that could be applied mechanically."
"The antithesis of formalism is legal realism."
"Legal realism has been said to be '[p]erhaps the most pervasive and accepted theory of how judges arrive at legal decisions.'"
"Sound legal decisions can be justified as the conclusions of valid deductive syllogisms."
"Judges should decide cases by the application of uncontroversial principles to the facts."