It seems like at least some of us agree that this week's decisions have everything to do with political choices made by a council of elders and nothing to do with true doctrinal substance. I, for one, REALLY believe that. For those of you who agree, I wonder how we should approach these cases with our students. When I first started teaching I asked a famous critical legal scholar that question and the person responded that the scholarly hat wasn't the same as the teaching hat. That didn't satisfy me then and it doesn't now. But I am nervous about suggesting to my students that the results are all political choice and zero doctrine (which I believe). Any suggestions?
Eric Segall GSU College of Law >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 06/26/03 20:23 PM >>> Isn't it obvious? The Court is doing what it has long done, acting as Posnerian "wise elders" squarely within the mainstream of American elite opinion, imposing this vision on aberrant states. Scot Powe pretty persuasively explains most Warren Court holdings on this basis. Only Powell's unexpected temporary brain lock and lapse from such elite opinion made it take this long. I wouldn't expect much sequelae from this case, any more than from Bush v. Gore. Frank Cross Herbert D. Kelleher Centennial Professor of Business Law CBA 5.202 University of Texas at Austin Austin, TX 78712
