Legal realism (of one stripe) can't really be separated from positivism because you need a view of formal law to predict what the realist outcome is.
this is apparently my brain’s new way of expressing “would you care to expand on that?”
-
-
1/For example, legal realists often point out that you can reliably predict the outcome of Supreme Court cases by looking at the justices' political leanings. But even if the justices are wholly politically motivated, they still must form a view as to the formal aspects of the
-
2/case to decide which holding would best serve their politics. There is a feedback effect.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Succinct and also bewildering
-
What he seems to be suggesting, and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that legal matters should be reducible to syntax and operations that could be performed by computers.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.