Micro-Symposium: Richard Posner’s ‘What is Obviously Wrong with the Federal Judiciary
This post has been viewed 2,892 times.
The Download of the Week is Micro-Symposium: Richard Posner’s ‘What is Obviously Wrong with the Federal Judiciary’ with contributions by Ross E. Davies (George Mason University – Antonin Scalia Law School, Faculty; The Green Bag), Timothy Delaune (SUNY Cortland), Swift Edgar (Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz), Jonathan Mermin (Preti, Flaherty, Beliveau & Pachios), William Baude (University of Chicago – Law School), Stephen E. Sachs (Duke University School of Law), Richard A. Posner (University of Chicago Law School; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)), & Eric Segall (Georgia State University College of Law). Here is the abstract:
After Richard Posner gave the Green Bag’s readers a double dose of “What Is Obviously Wrong With the Federal Judiciary,” we invited them to comment on his comments on the courts. So did he: “What I would most like to see would be criticism of the criticisms that I have made of the federal judiciary, and of the American legal culture more broadly, in this two-part article and at much greater length in Divergent Paths (and earlier books and articles). The Bluebook must have its defenders – let them defend their precious tome from me. And so must the awful legal jargon found in so many judicial opinions, and their verbosity; the superfluous headings and subheadings; the silly flourishes; the paeans to the adversary system; the pattern jury instructions; the standards of review; the dread of the italicized period; the spittoons behind the Supreme Court’s bench. The list goes on and on… But no; it seems I am to remain a voice crying in the wilderness. Pretty depressing. This micro-symposium should inspire in Posner both a new cheeriness and more of the same old depression.
Read original articleTags:
