« Great Qualitative Research on Personal Services Lawyers | Main | Solum on Interdisciplinary Ignorance »

04 October 2006

Comments

William Ford

Right, it's division without ignorance. So it is different than the division that actually developed.

Also, Frankfurter thought political scientists took the language of judicial opinions too seriously. Later, political scientists seemed to go to the other extreme, mainly focusing on outcomes and dismissing or ignoring judges' explanations.

William Henderson

Bill, Great passage. But I am not sure I agree with your characterization. Was Frankfurter really calling for "more of a division", as you commented in Great Moments I, or clear allocation of roles in order to produce a better dialogue?

Frankfurter says, "Only after we have such an [empirical?] analysis [by the economists and political scientists] is it the function of the American lawyer either to find within the existing body of law resources adequate to reconcile law with wisdom, or, if that reconciliation is impossible, to fashion new law. Until the economists and political scientists attend to their special tasks [of empiricism?] and we lawyers to ours and each has an awareness of the others’ problems, we shall continue to have what Alvin Johnson calls the cross-sterilization of the social disciplines."

Frankfurter wants (a) a clear division of labor, and (b) an awareness and dialogue among the disciplines. This vision hasn't come to pass. But if it had, the Great Divide would look quite different.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Conferences

August 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

Site Meter


Creative Commons License


  • Creative Commons License
Blog powered by Typepad