Pedagogy & the Standards of Review

[Samuel Bagenstos]

I think this is exactly right, and my perspective is definitely affected from having taught both con law and crim pro.  Students have to be taught what these terms generally mean when legal actors refer to them, but they shouldn't be taught that the tiers of review constitute "the ways" courts look or should look at cases raising constitutional questions.

====================================
Samuel R. Bagenstos
Professor of Law
Washington University School of Law
One Brookings Drive
St. Louis, MO  63130
314-935-9097
Personal Web Page:  http://law.wustl.edu/Academics/Faculty/Bagenstos/index.html
Disability Law Blog:  http://disabilitylaw.blogspot.com/

>>> "Jason Mazzone" <jason.mazzone at brooklaw.edu> 10/25/2005 9:55 AM >>>
As somebody who teaches Criminal Procedure as well as Constitutional Law,
I tell my students to understand but not to make too much of the notion of
"standards of review." Aside from being intellectually weak, in the scheme
of things, setting out the standard of review and then applying it to the
case at hand is a relatively rare practice. Most notably, in the criminal
procedure cases, also involving alleged violations of constitutional
rights, the courts don't follow this practice--instead they just get to
the issue. While many commentators were perplexed by the absence of a
clearly stated standard of review in Lawrence v. Texas, from my
perspective, the logic of the case was quite consistent with the body of
constitutional law as a whole.

Jason Mazzone
Assistant Professor of Law
Brooklyn Law School
250 Joralemon Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
(718) 780-7514 (voice)
(718) 780-0394 (fax)


_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu 
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof 

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.