Monday, February 14, 2005

Judicial realism

One of the points of "Copenhagen" is that scientists, like the rest of us, can work in very different styles. Heisenberg was a pure mathematician: if he could reduce a problem to a formula he was happy. Bohr insisted that the work be written up plainly enough that his wife could understand it.

In this essay, plain-speaking constitutional scholar Bruce Ackerman shows that it doesn't take a lawyer to know which way the wind blows. "The question raised by the coming vacancies to the Supreme Court is whether American law will remain in conservative hands, or whether it will be captured by a neo-con vision of revolutionary change. The issue is not liberalism v. conservatism, but conservatism v. neo-conservatism." Recommended by Jack Balkin and Howard Bashman. TalkLeft calls it "ominous."

No comments: