| | |
|
JoshuaDivineFirstPaper 3 - 21 Feb 2012 - Main.JoshuaDivine
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | |
With this sort of observation in mind, I quickly concluded that legal academia had finally moved beyond the formalism that had so frustrated my old advisor. But as the first semester wore on I found myself less and less interested in my courses. I spent a lot of time over Christmas break confused by own disinterest. “Law school is doing everything right,” I thought, “so why can’t I just pay attention?” And so my re-reading of Holmes and Frank early this semester was eerily well timed. As we discussed them in class I realized that I had forgotten an entire half of the core realist claim.
| |
<
< | I conceive of the first half as the basic, positive claim: law is what judge’s say it is; law is a grounded, social discipline, not an abstract science of eternal logic. This is the half I remember from college, and I think it is the half that most of the legal community remembers. I suspect I would have trouble finding a colleague or professor anywhere in Columbia School who would deny the policy-making role of judges or the superficiality of much legal logic. But even as we acknowledge the truth of the realist claim, we consistently fail to spend any serious time considering its implications. We acknowledge that judicial decisions are a deeply incomplete method of predicting legal outcomes but teach law almost exclusively by reading judicial decisions. We all know that courts are politicized. Yet even in Constitutional Law we focus on the development of doctrine to the almost complete expense of the development of the Supreme Court itself. We vigorous debate the meaning of words like “resonable” that are almost entirely self-referential. | >
> | I conceive of the first half as the basic, positive claim: law is what judge’s say it is; law is a grounded, social discipline, not an abstract science of eternal logic. This is the half I remember from college, and I think it is the half that most of the legal community remembers. I suspect I would have trouble finding a colleague or professor anywhere in Columbia School who would deny the policy-making role of judges or the superficiality of much legal logic. But even as we acknowledge the truth of the realist claim, we consistently fail to spend any serious time considering its implications. We acknowledge that judicial decisions are a deeply incomplete method of predicting legal outcomes but teach law almost exclusively by reading judicial decisions. We all know that courts are politicized. Yet even in Constitutional Law we focus on the development of doctrine to the almost complete expense of the development of the Supreme Court itself. We vigorousy debate the meaning of words like “resonable” that are almost entirely self-referential. | | | Having now re-read Holmes and Frank, I realize that they completely anticipated this failure to tease out implications. In fact, I think their anticipation of this failure should be viewed as the second half of the realist claim, the half that I along with most of legal community tend to forget. These writers spend as much time discussing the failure of the legal community to adopt a more realist approach as they do enunciating the approach itself. Their outline of a pragmatic approach to legal outcomes cannot and should not be separated from their analysis of why the legal community fails to take such an approach. Holmes and Frank, I suspect, were fairly confident that the descriptive value of their approach would ensure its eventual adoption. But they were concurrently unsure that an acknowledgement of the realist claim on its face could break the grip of legal magic. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |