My question is - "Should a judge consider the ramifications of his judgment if his judgment is soundly based on the law but will have the possibility of really hurting for example the economy?"
Of course my question has some 'generalizations' and some 'assumptions' that the judge has determined in favor of some class action suit in the article below:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN2634924420080630?ref=patrick.net&pageNumber=3&virtualBrandChannel=10179&sp=true
It's an interesting article which mainly says that it is possible for a judge to nullify an existing loan based on the truth in lending act of 1968 if that loan violated the premise of that act. In this case we're talking about some class action suits - so not one loan but quite a few - I don't think it mentions the number but we could say thousands of loan - nullified in which the bank has to return all fees and interest to the borrower.
According to the article congress was lobbied to ban this 'feature' of the Truth in lending act but did not do so. So now the defendants of these class actions are hoping that the judges will not do this based on the effect it may have. If the banks are truly guilty I do not think it would be appropriate or desirable to have a judge hold back on doing this - it would not be 'justice' for the plaintiffs. It would certainly be a good example of an 'activist' judge if he/she did hold back.
There are concrete examples of lenders and borrowers lying and cheating to get these loans processed and they all need to be held accountable.