“Some things that are big in the legal academy are considered irrelevant or crackpot by judges,” Mr. Shapiro said. “There’s a feeling that law schools have become very theoretical and perhaps out of touch with whatever goes on in the courts.”
Irrelevant or crackpot -- pretty much describes ANY law review article to a practicing attorney. You can go your entire highly successful litigation career and never once cite to a law review.
“Some things that are big in the legal academy are considered irrelevant or crackpot by judges,” Mr. Shapiro said. “There’s a feeling that law schools have become very theoretical and perhaps out of touch with whatever goes on in the courts.”
On the other hand, if John Hart Ely was on the Court in 1973, maybe the Court wouldn't have screwed the pooch so bad in Roe v. Wade.
Ely was and is pro-choice but he eviscerated the legal bona fides of the opinion. I can't think of a law review article that so obliterates a judicial opinion.
SC -- you make the error of assuming that Blackmun, et al. gave a rat's ass about reason, law, etc. They did not. It was made abundantly clear by White that he was making it up out of whole cloth and that it was "an exercise of raw judicial power."
i was hoping the list would include The Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule, U. Pa. L. R. (1975). It's my personal favorite. I try to cite it in appellate briefs whenever possible.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
Encourage Althouse by making a donation:
Make a 1-time donation or set up a monthly donation of any amount you choose:
६ टिप्पण्या:
It ought to be mentioned that the article at the top of the list wasn't written by a lawyer, but an economist.
“Some things that are big in the legal academy are considered irrelevant or crackpot by judges,” Mr. Shapiro said. “There’s a feeling that law schools have become very theoretical and perhaps out of touch with whatever goes on in the courts.”
No shit.
Irrelevant or crackpot -- pretty much describes ANY law review article to a practicing attorney. You can go your entire highly successful litigation career and never once cite to a law review.
“Some things that are big in the legal academy are considered irrelevant or crackpot by judges,” Mr. Shapiro said. “There’s a feeling that law schools have become very theoretical and perhaps out of touch with whatever goes on in the courts.”
On the other hand, if John Hart Ely was on the Court in 1973, maybe the Court wouldn't have screwed the pooch so bad in Roe v. Wade.
Ely was and is pro-choice but he eviscerated the legal bona fides of the opinion. I can't think of a law review article that so obliterates a judicial opinion.
SC -- you make the error of assuming that Blackmun, et al. gave a rat's ass about reason, law, etc. They did not. It was made abundantly clear by White that he was making it up out of whole cloth and that it was "an exercise of raw judicial power."
i was hoping the list would include The Common Law Origins of the Infield Fly Rule, U. Pa. L. R. (1975). It's my personal favorite. I try to cite it in appellate briefs whenever possible.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा