Sociology

Introduction
Early life of Benjamin Cardozo
Benjamin Cardozo was born in New York on May 24, 1870.  The Cardozo family is one of the most distinguished clans in New York during that time.  His forbearers were one of the founders of the Congregation of Shearith Israel, the oldest congregation in North America.  Benjamin was the son of Judge Albert Cardozo and Rebecca Nathan, where his father was a vice president and a trustee of the Congregation of Shearith Israel and his mother was a plain housewife.  Public service and law runs in the Cardozo blood which may have primarily influenced Benjamin when he took his path in political science and law.  Benjamin experiences a well-off life because his family belonged to the upper class in the society until they have suffered a major setback when his father, Albert, was forced to resign in the congregation due to nepotism. In the later part of his life, he became an agnostic and had stopped attending religious services.  Despite this, Benjamin remained to be a proud Jew until the last times of his life.  To manifest this, he refused to eat pork and shellfish and even welcome such in his house for the rest of his life.  At the age of 25, he started one of his earliest battles of principles when he fought for the elimination of gender-segregated seating in the synagogue.  His stand in this issue became one of the most notable in the Jewish history.  Benjamin also became active in social-oriented activities for the Jews.  At one point in his life, he joined the Judean Club, an association intended to gather together every Jewish gentlemen to act for the advancement of the spiritual and intellectual aspirations of the Jews.  His whole life was dedicated for the service of his fellow Jewish citizens and the fight for their rights and welfare.

Law School
At a very young age, Benjamin was always fascinated with the nature of human law.  When he turned fifteen, he immediately sought his place at the Columbia College to finish his preparatory course.  He graduated as the top student in their class and pursued his Bachelors of Law at the Columbia Law School.  Unfortunately, he was not able to finish his degree.  Despite this failure, Benjamin remained excellent in all of his endeavors.  In fact, after his law school, he joined his fathers firm where he had earned a great reputation from his performance in the bar.  He particularly described himself as a commercial law litigator, and because of this, other lawyers in that firm seek for his assistance on complicated cases.  Upon his passing in the bar on 1891, he began practicing appellate law together with his brother.  After sometime, he practiced law in New York where he gained humungous reputation for winning complex cases.  His struggle to become successful in his law career was his effort to restore their familys tainted name and d his fathers glory when the old Cardozo left the practice.

Body
Judicial philosophy
Natural Law
Natural law, also known as the law of nature, is a theory suggesting that everything is in adherence with the laws of the nature.  This set of laws are closely in relation to morality, therefore, for acts of man to be considered valid, it has to be in direct relationship with societys accepted norms.  To elaborate on its meaning, natural law basically encompasses all human laws in satisfaction with the eternal laws and to promote the common good.  The criteria for the right and wrond under the natural law are dependent on circumstances.  Believers of the natural law posit that an unjust law is no law at all.

Legal Positivism
Legal positivism, on the other hand, is the complete opposite of natural law.  This theory suggests that there should be no relationship between morality and laws, and that the application of laws must be based primarily on the existence of facts in society.  Legal positivists believe that the law is created and can be diminished by humans, and by saying that, laws must not conform to morals or ethical standards because such are conceptualized by humans and have no fixed meaning.

Legal Realism
Legal realism is another theory in jurisprudence which explains that the real practice of law is what defines law.  It does not matter whether the practice is perceived to be right or wrong by the moral standards of society.  Since laws, according to legal realism theory, are created by human beings, it is subject to faults, imperfections, and failures, thus, man shall not regard it as perfect element of human existence.  Legal realists believe in the indeterminacy of laws which actually states that the laws on book cannot necessarily resolve all disputes of all kinds.  Resolutions are dependent on how litigators, lawyers, and judges weigh substantial information.

Critical Legal Studies
This jurisprudence theory is the youngest of all being developed in the 1970s.  This theory posits that law is largely contradictory and its mere characteristic is that it is the implementation of rules and policies from a dominant group in the society.  The first wave of the critical legal studies can be traced back during the American Legal Realism when a large portion of the society is influenced by civil rights movement and anti-war movements during the late 1960s.

New York Appellate Court
McPherson v. Buick Motor Company (opinion by Cardozo)
This case was a dispute between plaintiff Donald McPherson and defendant Buick Motor Company.  Facts of the case presented showed that the plaintiff was accusing the defendant of liability due to a defective wheel purchased.  The defendant was the one who manufactured the vehicle purchased by McPherson.  When it was inspected that the wheel was indeed defective, the defendant denied his liability because the wheel was not purchased directly from their company and instead, it was obtained from a dealer.

This case is identified in the characteristics of voluntary contract by privity towards the defendant.  The modern tort law theory explains that all citizens are obliged to exhibit highest virtue towards their peers, thus, justifying the essence of direct relationship between a plaintiff and a defendant.  Cardozos precursor rule for this case ordered that the defendant shall exercise product liability towards McPherson.  According to scholars, Cardozos decision was a representation that the liability of the manufacturer is still present even if the plaintiff did not directly obtained the product from the company. This situation does not remove the responsibility of care of the manufacturer from the products that it produces.  Cardozos decision on this mandates that the liability of care, especially on products, must extend even to the second degree of affinity.

Appointment to US Supreme Court
Cardozos appointment to the Court
In the February of 1914, under the Amendment of 1899, Cardozo was designated in the New York Court of Appeals.  He was the first Jew to ever sit as an official in the Court of Appeals.  When Samuel Seabury, former justice in the Court of Appeals resigned, Cardozo was appointed to fill in the vacancy.  That was the first permanent position that Cardozo had in his years of practice in the legal justice.  In 1917, his career as a justice advanced when both the Democratic and Republican parties voted and endorsed him to a 14-year term in the Court of Appeals.  After 14 years, he was again elected as the Chief Justice to serve for another full term starting 1926.  Although Cardozo was privileged to complete the 14-year term as Chief Justice of the Appellate Court, he resigned before his fifth year took place and have accepted an offer to become the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court.  His remarkable advancement in his career made him reputable in the industry and in history of legal management and practice.  His appointment to the US Supreme Court was made by President Herbert Hoover as the successor of late Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.  Cardozos appointment was criticized because such commends were seldom made in the history, according to a New York Times commentary.  In his tenure in the office, Cardozo was being applauded by many political personas primarily because the new Supreme Court justice was not motivated by any political parties and did not exercise partisanships in implementing the rules of the court and deciding on the outcome of every case.  He became one of the three so-called three musketeers in the Supreme Court due to his conviction that the court must have tight adherence to the tenth amendment.

Cases heard during six year term and opinions
His term as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was mostly about contract laws and cases.  His dealings with disputes among companies towards workers or individuals made him become more famous and tagged him as one of the most brilliant minds of legal arena in the history.  During those times, conflicts on contracts were prevalent due to the rapid industrialization that forced courts to adapt new setting s to be transformed into common laws.  Among his handled cases most notable in the history of US Supreme Court are  Meinharn v. Salmon which was basically a dispute concerning fiduciary duties of business partners.  Cardozo emphasized here that, Not honesty alone, but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive.  Another was the DeCicco v. Schweizer where Cardozo applied the third party beneficiary law in a marriage case, Jacob  Youngs v. Kent where the US Supreme Justice then argued that the damages which are products from a breach of contract are limited only to the attenuation of the propertys value if the end result of the case would only be an economic waste.

Conclusion
Cardozos interpretation of philosophy and  law
Cardozo, in his tenures as justice of different courts, believed that the ruling of the court and the orders set by laws must be obeyed by people in respect to fairness and objectivity.  Although Cardozo still recognizes that laws are subject to amendments prior to the complexities of each disputes, he reiterated that the laws shall be the highest ruling in the land to sustain social order.  Cardozo was able to apply the positive sides of natural law and the legal positivism.  He recognizes the will and responsibility of the people to take charge of the welfare of their fellow being.