The objection is inappropriate. Schauer suggests that unwritten work rules provide an additional basis for classifying cases as “easy” or “difficult.” However, if, in the subset of cases where these rules are supposed to apply, extrajudicial factors may influence decisions in some way, then these are not necessarily “easy” cases, as judges will always decide for other reasons – even unwritten rules. Therefore, such rules could not necessarily lead to a dislocated determination. 147. The distinction between primary, secondary/tertiary rights, which is common in legal literature and case-law, is as follows. Primary rights are substantive rights, such as freedom of expression, purchase of land, etc. Secondary (or “procedural”) rights do several things. Some empower their owners to initiate dispute resolution procedures (litigation, arbitration, administrative proceedings, etc.) when primary rights appear to be violated or threaten to be violated. They also empower rightholders to refrain from such processes. Others are rights granted and used in administrative procedures, for example to submit certain applications.
Still others are used outside institutional frameworks, such as requests for self-help measures. Tertiary rights are claims for “redress” granted in dispute settlement proceedings, such as a cash reward. See, for example, Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld, “The Relations Between Equity and Law” (1913) 11:8 Mich L Rev 537. We could add quaternary rights: the legal mechanisms used to try to obtain a court-ordered remedy. Many critics have argued that realists have exaggerated the extent to which the law is “riddled” with loopholes, contradictions, etc.  The fact that most legal questions contain simple and clear answers that no lawyer or judge would dispute is difficult to reconcile with strong realistic claims of pervasive legal “vagueness.” Other critics, such as Ronald Dworkin and Lon Fuller, criticized right-wing realists for their attempt to sharply separate law and morality.   Although the American legal realist movement first emerged as a cohesive intellectual force in the 1920s, it relied heavily on a number of opinion leaders and was influenced by broader cultural forces. In the early years of the twentieth century, formalist approaches to law were heavily criticized by thinkers such as Roscoe Pound, John Chipman Gray, and Benjamin Cardozo. Philosophers such as John Dewey had supported empirical science as a model for all intelligent research, arguing that law should be seen as a practical tool for promoting human well-being. Outside the realm of law, in areas such as economics and history, there has been a “general revolt against formalism,” a backlash in favor of more empirical ways of practicing philosophy and the humanities.  However, by far the most important intellectual influence on legal realists has been the thinking of American jurist and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The history of common law in the United States is believed to have begun with the colonization of North American colonies in the 17th century.
At the beginning of the 17th century. In the nineteenth century, the American legal system was quite complex due to various historical conditions and has to deal with all kinds of laws that prevailed at the time. Some authors have listed as many as 15 common law sources: For American realists, the focus was on how cases were decided by judges in real life, as opposed to what is suggested by formalists. The determining fact of the law does not exist and is only a construction of the positivists that is completely misleading. For the language of law not only has inherent limitations, but its importance is attributed by the judges who decide cases. As a result, realists have often been confronted with the fact that judges actually suppress established legal norms when deciding cases or giving them a different color. The law in the statutes was very different from what was given by the judges in the courts. Indeed, the law simply cannot clearly determine an outcome, which means that it leaves open to the judge or other decision-maker a wide range of possible outcomes based on non-legal grounds. Many factors have influenced judges to decide a case the way it was decided. This has been understood as “law in action” as opposed to “law in books.” Legal realists believe that jurisprudence should examine law only through the worthless methods of the natural sciences, rather than through philosophical inquiries into the nature and meaning of law, which are separate and distinct from law as it is actually practiced. In fact, legal realism claims that the law cannot be separated from its application, nor can it be understood outside its application.
As such, legal realism focuses on the law as it actually exists, not the law as it should be. By situating the importance of law in areas such as judges` legal opinions and their respect for or rejection of past precedents and the doctrine of stare decisis, he emphasizes the importance of understanding the factors involved in judicial decision-making. To understand the context in which legal realism gained prominence in the United States, it is important to know the prevailing legal theories at the time. 148. See Rumble, “A New Look”, note 84, p. 84. 227-28; David Frydrych, “Hohfeld vs the Legal Realists” (2018) 24:4 Legal Theory 291-315-22 on the fundamentally identical views of Llewellyn and other realists on rights and duties (i.e., primary rights are somewhat illusory). Again, Llewellyn (and Schauer) do not seem to approve of the possibility that primary legal rights and obligations (as products exclusively of “substantial” rules) are actually as written in books, and that officials have only broad discretion as to the application and enforcement of these positions. 115. Ibid., pp.
61-62 [emphasis added]. See also Llewellyn, “The Next Step,” op. cit. cit., note 3, pp. 437-38, 448 with regard to statutory rights. As legal realists argue, India`s judiciary has openly articulated political issues and, in some cases, judges have gone far beyond the text of the codified law. In fact, the Supreme Court even appointed the committees to oversee the investigation and asked the committee to report to the court. In addition, the court has even begun to enforce the laws under its direct supervision.
He had even appointed some people to investigate a case. American legal realists believe that jurisprudence is more than the “mechanical” application of well-known legal principles to undisputed findings of fact consistent with arguments of legal formalism. Some realists believe that one can never be sure that the facts and law identified in the judge`s reasoning were the real reasons for the verdict, while other realists accept that one can often rely on a judge`s motives, but not always. Realists believe that the legal principles that legal formalism treats as unchallenged actually hide controversial political and moral choices.