Democracy and the Death of Knowledge
18 Pages Posted: 29 Nov 2006
Abstract
This essay was presented as the 2006 William Howard Taft lecture at the University of Cincinnati College of Law. It suggests that the conflation of politics and law - the view that judges are not legal experts but rather legislators in robes - is part of a deeper and more worrisome trend. We do not see judges as legal experts because we no longer believe in expertise. We have, in other words, begun to conflate politics and knowledge. We are moving toward a world in which the creation of knowledge is not the province of experts, but is instead produced by popular vote. This essay explores and critiques that trend.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?
Recommended Papers
-
Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty of Deliberately Disregarding
By Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Andrew J. Wistrich, ...
-
Why Precedent in Law (and Elsewhere) is Not Totally (or Even Substantially) about Analogy
-
Sentencing Decisions: Matching the Decisionmaker to the Decision Nature
-
Taking Behavioralism Too Seriously? The Unwarranted Pessimism of the New Behavioral Analysis of Law
-
Reason is Too Large: Analogy and Precedent in Law
By Dan Hunter
-
Coding Complexity: Bringing Law to the Empirical Analysis of the Supreme Court