The Role of the Courts: Judicial Review of Arbitral Awards and Mediated Settlement Agreements
Law aspires (at least in large part) to consistency and predictability. The genius of the common law was in part the benefits of treating like cases alike. Although the post-modern, multi-faceted legal profession of today may not always agree on the similarity or difference of cases, much less correct outcomes, one would expect at least that courts would hew to roughly the same methodology across cases, aspects of a single case, or sections of a specific statute. This is not to say that there will never be jurisprudential differences between “mainstream” judges. We know, for example, that Justice Scalia is a textualist when approaching statutes (and legal texts generally) while Justice Breyer gives substantial consideration to legislative intent and the views of administrative agencies. But despite these differences, one would expect the Supreme Court as a whole to be at least relatively consistent when addressing the same statute.
Jeffrey W. Stempel, Asymmetric Dynamism and Acceptable Judicial Review of Arbitration Awards, 5 Y.B. Arb. & Mediation 1 (2013).