The central article of faith of the traditional understanding of the Rule of Law is that precedent uniquely determines the outcome of legal cases. Skepticism about that faith, however, is widespread. Critical Legal Scholars, as well as their intellectual ancestors, the Legal Realists, have frequently attacked the legitimacy of the received model and the formalist view of the relationship between the law and its individual applications that underlies the model. The common aim of these attacks is to demonstrate that the law is indeterminate in outcome and that the supposed constraints of the Rule of Law on judges are fictions.
Law | Rule of Law
Christian Zapf & Eben Moglen,
Linguistic Indeterminacy and the Rule of Law: On the Perils of Misunderstanding Wittgenstein,
Geo. L. J.
Available at: https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/3003