Famous NYU legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin writes that the majority of the majority of the Supreme Court "seems guided by no judicial or political principle at all, but only by partisan, cultural, and perhaps religious allegiance." It's a classy analysis of the 2006 term, comprehensive, nuanced, and with an interesting conclusion: that Roberts is warping the logic of old cases in order to seem justified when he throws them out later.
Except everyone knows all that. It's nice to have the entire 06 term proved stupid line by line, but couldn't a 1L have done it? I don't like seeing someone so famous for being smart descend to the Court's level. It's probably part of Bush's plan to make all the smartest liberals in America waste time pulling their hair. Philosophers shouldn't be debating whether John Roberts is impure, they should be figuring out where the world came from already!
One unclassy thing: He refers to legal doctrine he doesn't like as "slogans" and "rhetoric." For example, "the distinction between taking race to be decisive and counting it as one factor among many has figured prominently in Supreme Court rhetoric since the earliest affirmative action cases." I agree that legal doctrine that benefits conservative causes is more accurately classified as wordplay than wisdom/logic/truth. But I feel that way about legal doctrine that doesn't benefit conservatives, too. The length of this essay and Dworkin's career suggest that he respects law more than I do. So quit the "rhetoric" rhetoric and just call it all doctrine!
I just caught myself thinking, "why did he bother? Is he getting paid by the word or something?" Uh yeah! It's this guy's job to bother! Ew, jobs really make fools out of everyone huh...
Why did I bother writing this? Because Dworkin rejected me from his colloquium.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment