Why do appellate courts always have an odd number of judges? And
what does the answer tell us about changing concepts of law? How
can common law be unconstitutional? Why does the power of judges
depend on accurate court reporting?
Because legal education today has come to focus so much on
teaching students "how to think like lawyers," some subjects do not
fit comfortably in law school curricula. John Orth, a distinguished
senior law scholar, here explores some of these neglected but
important topics. His insightful volume invites students of the law
to look at the origins of accepted legal practices as a means of
gaining insight into the judicial role and the evolution of common
law.
In six carefully reasoned and clearly argued articles-four never
before published--Orth presents the familiar in a fresh light. He
considers, in addition to the questions already mentioned, how the
centuries-old common law tradition interacts with statutory
law-making, why claims that individual rights are grounded in
common law are suspect, and how the common law uses what it learns
about the past.
In considering these questions related to common law and its
remarkable longevity, Orth illuminates both its interaction with
written constitutions and its longstanding preoccupation with
procedure and property. And by questioning the assertion that
individualism was the cornerstone of common law, he deftly resolves
an objection that liberal scholars sometimes raise concerning
common law--its connection to the Lochner era of Supreme Court
jurisprudence. Together, these essays show that common law is
constantly in motion, using and reusing techniques that have kept
it viable for centuries.
How many judges does it take to make a supreme court? As Orth
observes, the institutional novelty of odd numbers of judges
provided a means to break ties but did nothing to guarantee
acceptance of their decisions. By demonstrating that what seems
obvious about the law today was not always so, he cogently
addresses changing perceptions of law and invites its future
practitioners not only to think like lawyers but also to be more
fully grounded in the law.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!