Balance has always been controversial among jurists and judges. Critics argue that it gives judges too much discretion and amounts to a usurpation of the legislative function. They claim that this is a vague and arbitrary method of measuring unequal interests in relation to each other, and that it leads to unpredictable decisions. One vocal critic of compensation is Justice Antonin Scalia. In its dissenting opinion in Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, 486 U.S. 888, 108 pp. Ct. 2218, 100 L. Ed.

2d 896 (1988), he described the balancing of competing interests as an illusion. “The analogy of scale is not really appropriate,” he writes, “because the interests on both sides are disproportionate. It`s more like judging if a certain line is longer than what a particular stone weighs. Balance, which is often used to decide constitutional cases, is one of the two main methods of legal decision-making, the other being categorization or strict interpretation. Balance balances competing rights and analyzes the relative strengths of many factors. A balancing decision depends on the circumstances of each case. Therefore, the outcome is difficult to predict. In contrast, categorization is a classification and labelling process. It is about identifying a right and how it was violated, and comparing these findings to a case or precedent that has already been decided. Therefore, the outcome is more predictable.

While the U.S. Supreme Court reviews its decisions when it uses a balancing test to resolve high-profile or controversial issues, it is not the only court to resolve issues by balancing competing interests at stake in litigation. In fact, every day across the country, state and federal courts are asked to weigh the competing interests of litigants when assessing the admissibility of evidence, the appropriateness of a sanction, or the feasibility of an appeal. State and federal criminal codes also generally require judges to assess the aggravating and mitigating circumstances underlying a crime before imposing a particular sentence on a defendant. Aggravating factors are factors that warrant a harsher sentence and are usually introduced by the prosecutor`s office, the victim or his or her family. Mitigating factors are factors that warrant a lighter sentence and are usually introduced by the accused, the defendant`s lawyer or witnesses speaking on behalf of the accused. Balancing was first used by the U.S. Supreme Court as one of its primary methods of legal analysis in the late 1930s and early 1940s, when the judiciary began to reject the rigid formalism and mechanical jurisprudence characteristic of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Before the era of balancing begins in earnest with Lochner v.

New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 pp. Ct. 539, 49 L. Ed. 937 (1905), the Court held that a New York statute fixing the maximum number of hours of work was constitutional, as such regulation was within the police power of the State. In making this decision, the Court did not seek to balance the rights of the individual against the interests of the state, but directly examined the wording of the law and found it valid. That earlier court stated: “The purpose of a law must be determined by the natural and legal effect of the language used. It seems to us that the real object and purpose [of the statute] was simply to regulate the hours of work between the master and his employees.

In the case of a promissory note loan, the balance owing is not the sum of the payments due, as these include amortized interest, but may be the principal amount owing without further interest. LawInfo.com Nationwide Bar Directory and Legal Consumer Resources Early proponents of compensation included prominent Supreme Court justices such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Louis D. Brandeis, and Harlan F. Stone, all of whom served on the court from the early to mid-1900s. Holmes, sometimes referred to as the patron saint of the anti-formalist movement, was one of the first to defend the idea that law is and should be an evolving product of social experience. He opposed the idea that rigid formulas could be applied to all situations before the Court. “The law is a logical development, like everything else,” he wrote. Similarly, Brandeis criticized the court for ignoring contemporary social, political, and economic issues. He said: “Whether a measure relating to the common good is arbitrary or inappropriate. should be based on an examination of relevant facts, actual or possible” (Adams v. Tanner, 244 U.S.

590, 37 pp. Ct. 662, 61 L. Ed. 1336 [1917] [Brandeis, J., deviant]). In another case, he wrote: “The question whether a law enacted in the exercise of police power is rightly accused of being unreasonable or arbitrary can generally be determined only by taking into account the present social, industrial and political conditions of the community that is supposed to be affected by it. Recourse to such facts is necessary, inter alia, to assess the evils to be remedied and the possible effects of the proposed remedy” (Truax v.