"Fact-responsive"

According to realists, judiciaries will decide cases based on "how the facts strike them" and not let legal rules dictate how they will rule in every single case. If every single case could be decided based on a rule-responsive system, then there would be no need for judges at all. Cases would be able to be decided by checking the rules/laws and seeing where that situation fit in among the written law. In our society however, few cases are this cut and dry. This is why judicial descrection is so important and why it is absolutley necessary for judges to act based on how the facts of a given case are presented. No two cases will be exactly alike and it is the judges responsibility to interpret the law and precendents to fit to a certain group of facts that are presented in a given case. While it is true that many pyscho-social factors may affect a judges decision, these are necessary in helping him to understand and interpret the facts that are often so different for many cases. If a judge didnt allow any pyscho-social factors to aid in deciding a case, it is unlikely that he would be able to accuratley interpret any of the presented facts. It is necessary to have a background and a set opinion on mainstream issues such as moral conflicts and issues of political ideology. This is what makes our court system so fair. Every defendent is given an indepent trial in which the facts of a certain case may be looked at for what they are instead of how they could possibly fit into a narrowly defined law.