I've had plenty of symptoms for two years now, but having just finished a grueling Federal Courts final only to find that I really miss the class already, the diagnosis is unmistakable: Law Geek. There are far too many good reasons to study federal jurisdiction, but perhaps chiefly among them is the awesome privilege of understanding what is among the most amazing things ever written in a law journal: Henry Hart's Dialogue (yes, the Platonic kind) on congressional control of the federal courts. Most of it requires background knowledge, but it's frequently punctuated by lovely bits of legal philosophy, like this gem, which I think many De Novo readers would enjoy:
The unfortunate cynicism I've learned in law school gives me pause to appreciate the profound dialectical optimism of this passage, but I suppose, in the long run, I too think the law grows more just, and that change is not merely change, but growth. I wonder, nevertheless, how a judge possessed of what Professor Solum has called "the virtue of justice" would read this passage.
I read this morning Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, decided by the Supreme Court on June 27, 2002, approving Ohio's voucher program for the City of Cleveland that included religious schools as not in violation of the Establishment Clause. The dissenting opinions well demonstrate Hart's observations as contrasted to Rehnquist's Opinion for the Court and O'Connor's and Thomas' concurring opinions.
Posted by: Shag from Brookline at April 28, 2004 10:41 AM