The Federal Judicial System: Applying the Law
In an article titled A Good Day for Judicial Discretion, it was acquired from the internet from the New York Times.
The main idea is that the US Court of Appeal has the authority to apply discrete rules of law. It means that it is not always that the courts adhere to absolute legal rules. Sometimes, justice has to prevail in spite of the small mistakes that people make such as a lawyer missing a deadline.
The people involved in the case where Albert Holland who was the convict, Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia (Low 1). Other important party to mention is the Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeal. There was also the Chief Justice Roberts Jr together, the accuser Jose Angel and Justice Samuel Alito Jr.
The issue addressed in the article relates with the class reading in that it talks about federalism whereby the state and the federal government have a constitutional relationship. In this case, there is a relationship between the federal and the state government to facilitate justice to all.
In my opinion, I believe that Supreme Court was right to overlook the deadline that was missed by the Howard’s lawyer. This is because the main issue was the case before the court which the judge decided to concentrate on instead of focusing on minor issues. It is the mandate of the judiciary to ensure that justice is guaranteed to all citizens. Therefore, applying the law requires that the judges be wise when it comes to decision making on a case. It is the only way in which justice can prevail. Justice Breyer was right to indicate that fast and hard adherence to legal rules when applying law may lead to archaic evil (Low 1). The Supreme Court judge must have been discreet to avoid the evil of denying justice to the defendant.