Structural defects of the highest courts’ legal positions

In the article, the author reflects on the contradictory positions of the highest national and international courts and the deterioration of the quality of their decisions, which leads to a conclusion about threats to the rule of law. Such deviations from the rules of jurisprudence can be seen in the field of the formation and change of legal positions on the application of the statute of limitations, the recognition of subjective rights to abortion, the formation of international customs in relation to the jurisdiction of the state. The author pays special attention to the arguments contained in the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Bouarfa v. Mayorkas. The totality of all legal features allows us to conclude that ignoring the established elements of legal systems occurs due to the insufficiently complete transfer of accumulated knowledge and experience in the field of jurisprudence between generations, or even due to the denial of such experience and knowledge as a result of the transformation of a civilizational nature. Modern law is a very complex phenomenon that includes a whole range of principles, doctrines, approaches, theoretical concepts, methodological guidelines, and types of interpretation of legal norms. Choosing in favor of some of them and ignoring others often depends on individual legal preferences, the peculiarities of the legal thinking of judges or the majority of judges who are members of the collegial composition of a judicial body. This is becoming another factor affecting the impartiality of judges.