getting over Bork, restoring our depleted legal capital

[Frank Cross]

At 09:21 PM 10/10/2005, Matthew J. Franck wrote:
>As I understand it, Paul's argument is simply this: that there was once an 
>understanding of constitutional judging, rooted in common law traditions, 
>to which the notion of judicial "ideology" was alien, and in which the 
>judge recoiled from any temptation to make public policy in the place of 
>legislators and executives.  This has not been conclusively shown to be a 
>false or deluded understanding of the judicial function, even if it was 
>often honored in the breach more than in the observance.

I'm sure I'm too much of a realist, but doesn't this seem like an awfully 
weak claim?

That we once had a notion, that, though never proved, has not been 
conclusively disproved, even if it was more often honored in the breach.

Doesn't this seem a little bit like lamenting the loss of belief in Santa 
Claus?




**********************************************************

Frank Cross
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station B6000
Austin, TX 78712-1178
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20051011/dd242f9c/attachment.html