Spring Break
Students Attend Richard S. Murphy Lecture
The Honorable Edith Hollan Jones Speaks on 'Prudence as a Judicial Virtue'
Jesse Coleman
Issue date: 11/9/04 Section: News
At the Richard S. Murphy Lecture on October 28, the Honorable Edith Hollan Jones told a packed house that prudence was an unusual but essential virtue that is much needed among judges today. The family of former GMUSL professor, Richard S. Murphy, invited Jones to speak at the third annual lecture in Murphy's memory. Jones is a justice on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Formerly a private Texas attorney, Jones was appointed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals by President Ronald Reagan in 1985. President George W. Bush appointed Jones to the White House Fellows Commission in May 2002.
Speaking before a mixed audience of students, faculty, attorneys, and colleagues, Jones explained that judges must exercise discretion in order to mediate values and governance. Jones added, "A prudent person is one who sees complexities and has an eye for the human condition."
Because many judges have lifetime tenure, they are in danger of arbitrariness, abruptness and laziness as their tenure continues, Jones explained. In order to combat this, judges need to cultivate the virtues of wisdom and disinterestedness and prudence. Of these three, prudence is the most difficult to characterize. "Prudence is thus achieved through experience and not just book knowledge," said Jones. She later elaborated on the importance that a judge be prudent because he or she is a lawyer in the process of interpreting the law and a counter-majoritarian force in government.
Drawing on the words of legal scholar, Alexander Bickel, Jones said American court judgments should be rational, candid, self-intelligible, and resting on fundamental principles rooted in history.
However, Jones also warned against instilling too many principles in judicial decisions because this is likely to make the law inflexible. "Principle has evolved conversationally and not unilaterally," she explained, later adding, "You have to confine principle very carefully when you have to define it."
Jones criticized the United States Supreme Court during the Chief Justice Earl Warren era for its lack of prudence, citing cases that created, what Bickel called, a "web of subjectivity" and led to a "national litigation explosion." Jones added that, while America is still the most religious society in the western world, it has been forced to deal with the unrepresentative secularity of the Supreme Court over the years. Still, the Supreme Court has acted prudently in certain cases, and the struggle to maintain judicial prudence is an ongoing fight where victory is elusive, Jones allowed.
Jones concluded by stating that practicing judicial prudence was the only way to reconcile judicial decisions with a republican government. "We have to use our due regard and great humility to realize our scheme in government," Jones said.
Speaking before a mixed audience of students, faculty, attorneys, and colleagues, Jones explained that judges must exercise discretion in order to mediate values and governance. Jones added, "A prudent person is one who sees complexities and has an eye for the human condition."
Because many judges have lifetime tenure, they are in danger of arbitrariness, abruptness and laziness as their tenure continues, Jones explained. In order to combat this, judges need to cultivate the virtues of wisdom and disinterestedness and prudence. Of these three, prudence is the most difficult to characterize. "Prudence is thus achieved through experience and not just book knowledge," said Jones. She later elaborated on the importance that a judge be prudent because he or she is a lawyer in the process of interpreting the law and a counter-majoritarian force in government.
Drawing on the words of legal scholar, Alexander Bickel, Jones said American court judgments should be rational, candid, self-intelligible, and resting on fundamental principles rooted in history.
However, Jones also warned against instilling too many principles in judicial decisions because this is likely to make the law inflexible. "Principle has evolved conversationally and not unilaterally," she explained, later adding, "You have to confine principle very carefully when you have to define it."
Jones criticized the United States Supreme Court during the Chief Justice Earl Warren era for its lack of prudence, citing cases that created, what Bickel called, a "web of subjectivity" and led to a "national litigation explosion." Jones added that, while America is still the most religious society in the western world, it has been forced to deal with the unrepresentative secularity of the Supreme Court over the years. Still, the Supreme Court has acted prudently in certain cases, and the struggle to maintain judicial prudence is an ongoing fight where victory is elusive, Jones allowed.
Jones concluded by stating that practicing judicial prudence was the only way to reconcile judicial decisions with a republican government. "We have to use our due regard and great humility to realize our scheme in government," Jones said.