A CRITIQUE OF INTERPRETIVISM AND ITS CLAIMED INFLUENCE UPON JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING

Abstract

Interpretivism is a theory of judicial decision making that holds that modern constitutional adjudication should be grounded upon the values originally incorporated in the Constitution by its drafters. Interpretivists have claimed that the employment of their decision rule promotes judicial neutrality and restrains the Court from engaging in constitutional policymaking. This study empirically examines the interpretivists' approach in an area of law that is very conducive to the achievement of the interpretivists' objectives. Although a single study cannot prove or disprove major tenets of the interpretivist argument, this study's findings nevertheless question whether the claims of the interpretivists are realizable in the modern judicial process.