According to conventional wisdom in American legal culture, the 1870s to 1920s was the age of legal formalism, when judges believed that the law was autonomous and logically ordered, and that they mechanically deduced right answers in cases. In the 1920s and 1930s, the story continues, the legal realists discredited this view by demonstrating that the law is marked by gaps and contradictions, arguing that judges construct legal justifications to support desired outcomes. This often-repeated historical account is virtually taken for granted today, and continues to shape understandings about judging. In this groundbreaking book, esteemed legal theorist Brian Tamanaha thoroughly debunks the formalist-realist divide. Drawing from extensive research into the writings of judges and scholars, Tamanaha shows how, over the past century and a half, jurists have regularly expressed a balanced view of judging that acknowledges the limitations of law and of judges, yet recognizes that judges can and do render rule-bound decisions. He reveals how the story about the formalist age was an invention of politically motivated critics of the courts, and how it has led to significant misunderstandings about legal realism. Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide traces how this false tale has distorted studies of judging by political scientists and debates among legal theorists. Recovering a balanced realism about judging, this book fundamentally rewrites legal history and offers a fresh perspective for theorists, judges, and practitioners of law.
Eventually taken over by Arnold and Robinson alone, these seminars— illustrative, as they were, of realist legal education at its most critical and uncompromising12 — became known disparagingly among students as 'The Cave of the ...
This book demonstrates how legal realism offers important and unique jurisprudential insights that are not just a part of legal history, but are also relevant and useful for a contemporary understanding of legal theory.
When paired with a lack of regulatory oversight, the work environment of professors, the limited information available to prospective students, and loan-based tuition financing, the result is a system that is fundamentally unsustainable.
A comprehensive, in-depth discussion of the most influential movement in American legal history, and one which remains more than fifty years later the subject of lively debate, this collection of readings, written largely between 1900 and ...
Karl N. Llewellyn, Jurisprudence: Realism in Theory and Practice (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962), 513. 3. ... Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist–Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton: Princeton ...
Id., p. 143. See Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010). See also Brian Z. Tamanaha, “The Mounting Evidence Against the 'Formalist Age'”, ...
The Case of Speluncean Explorers: Nine New Opinions includes a reprint of Lon Fuller's classic article and a much-needed revision of and addition to the five opening s originally expressed in the case by five Supreme Court Judges
In my experience, however, 'formalists' and 'substantivists' often differ on rather less than they seem to. In his excellent and thought-provoking book, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide,1 Brian Tamanaha recently concluded that, ...
46 Morton J. Horwitz, The Transformation of American Law, 1870–1960 (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 169. 47 Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton: ...
Yet Wigmore’s role as a prophet of modernity has slipped into obscurity. This book provides a radical reappraisal of his place in the birth of modern legal thought.