Happy Haggert Hurried Hungry Hitch Hiking Hired Henchmen Hivers.... apply within
- Thread starter megamania
- Start date
trappedslider
Legend
you're a lawyer right? I'm asking because i've developed an interest in ConLaw, I'm currently reading America's Constitution: A Biography by Akhil Reed Amar and then i'm going to grab a copy of An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100 Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know,and so was wondering if you had any suggestions for further reading.
Woof. I read most of that stuff a long time ago and only brush up on it as needed. As a Centrist, I’ll say that neither the Left nor the Right has it 100% correct on analysis and application. And the particular truths and distortions of each side are interesting and illuminating in and of themselves.
If I were trying to do a little “light reading” on Con law, I might try sampling both sides, and if you can, find a particular topic within the field to latch onto.
I’ll also say that “Strict Constructionists” are only strict up until that isn’t convenient anymore- even Scalia broke this doctrine- because judges are human and therefore, inconsistent.
And “judicial activism” is usually code for “decisions I don’t like” by the person using the phrase...regardless of ideology, because judges of all political valences “legislate from the bench”. It’s actually an essential part of the job, most commonly done in the form of declaring a law unconstitutional.
One guy I can recommend, on further reflection, is Judge Richard Posner. He’s a conservative, but he has been exceptional in his ability to leave his personal politics at the courthouse doors. It’s one of the main reasons he’s never going to be appointed to the SCOTUS. He was one of the toughest judges for conservative lawyers/plaintiffs to face on issues of gay civil rights because he demanded a solid legal rationale- as opposed to religious or traditional ones, etc.- to justify the disparate treatment of the LGBT community. He didn’t get shown any, so the conservatives lost every time in his court. Many plaintiffs thought they got lucky drawing him for their cases because he’s a known conservative, and walked out of his courtroom looking like chum after the sharks were full.
If I were trying to do a little “light reading” on Con law, I might try sampling both sides, and if you can, find a particular topic within the field to latch onto.
I’ll also say that “Strict Constructionists” are only strict up until that isn’t convenient anymore- even Scalia broke this doctrine- because judges are human and therefore, inconsistent.
And “judicial activism” is usually code for “decisions I don’t like” by the person using the phrase...regardless of ideology, because judges of all political valences “legislate from the bench”. It’s actually an essential part of the job, most commonly done in the form of declaring a law unconstitutional.
One guy I can recommend, on further reflection, is Judge Richard Posner. He’s a conservative, but he has been exceptional in his ability to leave his personal politics at the courthouse doors. It’s one of the main reasons he’s never going to be appointed to the SCOTUS. He was one of the toughest judges for conservative lawyers/plaintiffs to face on issues of gay civil rights because he demanded a solid legal rationale- as opposed to religious or traditional ones, etc.- to justify the disparate treatment of the LGBT community. He didn’t get shown any, so the conservatives lost every time in his court. Many plaintiffs thought they got lucky drawing him for their cases because he’s a known conservative, and walked out of his courtroom looking like chum after the sharks were full.
Last edited:
Not sure if it’s the MOST divisive phrase, but it IS up there...
Similar Threads
