New Reading Material
The Curmudgeonly Clerk really didn't like my plan to read Law's Empire. The book having arrived, and having spent some time pouring through it, I think he's right: it's a 'check out from the library' book, not an addition to my personal shelves. I've sent my copy back, and am exchanging it for some others.
Not like I have time to read anything but Con Law...
Update: From the Stupid Error Department--Thank you for not pointing out that I'd left the author unchanged when I update the books section, thus giving Ronald Dworkin responsibility for Wicked.
Comments
I think this is a mistake- Some parts of _law's empire_ are at best obscure- the semantic sting argument is the best example- but other parts are pretty good and interesting. I think that the ideas on interpritation are really quite interesting and plausible. It's vastly better than you'll find from most law professors. It's certainly more sophisticated than, say, the tripe the Scalia pushes. (See Dworkin's thrashing of Scalia in the volume _A Matter of interpritation_ for another example.) You shouldn't take Dwokin to be a good guide to his opponents (Brian Leiter is certainly right on that) but his own view of judging is quite interesting and not implausible, I think.
rvwkacpPosted by: matt | February 15, 2004 04:03 PM
If I were you I would have exchanged it with "The last juror" aren't all lawyer-gonna-be's supposed to read John Grisham's books?
visit my website :)
gepuxPosted by: Iysam | February 15, 2004 05:43 PM
I'd agree that the book is worth reading, because it has more or less defined the agenda for many scholars, and pretty well captured the theory of most liberal judges. But it's rather laughable to think that Dworkin "thrashed" Scalia in Matter of Interpretation. Perhaps you got the subject and object in your sentence confused.
dfatyrPosted by: Fr. Bill | February 16, 2004 10:21 PM