Vulgar attitudinalism and vulgar law

[Mark Graber]

Two thoughts in response to Sean Wilson.

1. One feature that makes all our posts more vulgar is an effort to say
in limited space what we (or at least I) often do not say clearly in 25
pages.

2.  The short version of a paper just published in Kahn/Kersch THE
SUPREME COURT AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENT is that there is no such
thing as a distinctive legal, strategic, and attitudinal model, but
that, among the many interactions between the three is the notion that
the law at times permits the constrained use of attitudes.  Like it or
not, with respect to affirmative action, there is a wide scope for what
are conventionally considered attitudinal considerations in interpreted
the legal distinction between Gratz and Grutter.

MAG