> > Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> >We are indoctrinated as lawyers to think law _isn't_ just politics,
> >that its legitimacy derives from adherence to internally consistent
> >principles--the meaning of statutes and the constitutional language,
> >respect for precedent.
>
> Really? This naivete makes economists look worldly.
>
> Doug
Justin is correct; this nonsense is most definitely what U.S. lawyers are indoctrinated to believe. It is a particular blindness among common lawyers, and has an historical explanation. My buddy Mike Tigar has some good chapters in his _Law and the Rise of Capitalism_ (2d Ed., Monthly Review Press, 2001) on legal ideology. But from the earliest days of this crap (of which the biggest crapper was Lord Coke) it has been critiqued; here's Jonathan Swift:
"It is a maxim among these lawyers that whatever has been done before may legaly be done again; and therefore they take special care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and the general reason of mankind. These, under the name of precedents, they produce as authorities."
john mage