The policies that emanate from the American courts are fundamentally different from policies made by the legislature on several key aspects. One of these aspects is the fact that policy from the court process is derived from an adversarial process. In contrast, policy by the legislature is derived from a deliberative process where negotiations achieve compromise legislation (Murphy et al., 2006). Another aspect of the court-derived policies is the fact that they are considered on a case-by-case basis. These policies interpret the law to resolve disputes between parties, which creates a precedent for how such situations should be handled. On the other hand, the legislature creates general laws that apply to broad situations and circumstances.
Another major difference between courts and legislative policies is the fact that courts are reactive. Consequently, courts make policies when parties to a dispute take it before the courts for resolution. The legislature, on the other hand, can proactively identify issues affecting or likely to affect society and initiate laws to tackle those issues. Finally, the courts have limited jurisdiction and can only address matters that fall under their purview (Murphy et al., 2006). In contrast, the legislature has a broader authority and can legislate any issue of importance to society. An example of the differences between courts and legislature is the 1973 Roe v. Wade. In this case, the court ruled that they had a right to abortion. The ruling effectively established a nationwide policy on abortion for forty years until the ruling was repealed.
Reference
Murphy, W. F., Pritchett, C. H., Epstein, L., & Knight, J. (2006). Courts, judges, & politics: An introduction to the judicial process. McGraw-Hill.