I thought there was a lot more truth than jest in this discussion, too. One of the things lawyers DO is to assess the relative weight given to competing authority. We split a lot of fine hairs doing so, according to how many votes a Supreme Court opinion garnered, when it was issued, written by whom, whether it came up as a matter of law or on the facts, etc.
The whole point of law is that it is an appeal to reason, if not emotion, and for these we look all around us, to the real as well as the unreal. Who wants to be the first to cite to the Lunar Reports? The Martian? Robert Sheridan [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [Original Message] > From: gerald neuman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 8/7/2003 8:27:20 AM > Subject: Re: Just for laughs > > Dear Friends, > I am not sure whether I am misinterpreting the previous post, but I > thought it was unintentionally profound. The real point that the > invocation of Star Trek, etc., made to me was that those materials ARE > eligible for citation according to the approaches of some list members, > precisely because they are NOT really intergalactic precedents but > products of U.S. culture. > The idea that U.S. legal culture can be hermetically sealed from foreign > entanglements, that it is permissible to cite Dewey but not Kant, Rawls > but not Habermas, maybe even Locke but not Mill, seems not only > ill-advised but impracticable. > The American Journal of International Law (I'm not sure whether to > emphasize "American" or "International") plans to publish a short > debate (Agora) on using international law in constitutional > interpretation this fall. I hope that list members will consider reading > it. > -- Gerry Neuman
