Tom Grey wrote, "personally, I think I quit teaching the subject because I never found a comfortable classroom balance of its (con law) sacred and profane aspects." Exactly. I don't want to quit teaching con law (and even more so fed courts), but it is getting increasingly difficult to teach these classes by having students read cases where the reasoning and doctrinal analysis are so often worse than my students own analyses. I agree with Sandy that teaching con law outside the courts is important, but that won't help my students litigate con law cases, pass the bar, or even develop good critical thinking. Moreover, it doesn't answer the question as to how to teach cases like Romer, Printz, etc., without great skepticism. Perhaps, there are no answers but I am leaning towards using these kinds of cases to display how not to reason, how not to judge, and then discuss whether it is good for a political system to have a council of wise people (lawyers) nominated by the Presiden! t and confirmed by the Senate (for life).
Eric Segall GSU College of Law
