Catalog
- Results include
-
Misreading law, misreading democracy
Nourse, Victoria F.Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard University Press, 2016."Hating Congress but loving Democracy is a national passion. For those who apply law, whether lawyers or judges, it is an oxymoronic luxury neither can afford. One of the dirty secrets of the legal academy is that it teaches almost nothing to lawyers about how law is made in Congress. The results of this ignorance can be perverse and anti-democratic. No lawyer would confuse a dissenting judicial opinion with a majority opinion, but somehow lawyers and judges in famous cases have unwittingly confused the meanings of legislative losers and winners. For those lawyers and judges who have declared that reverting to Congress's records is shameful and unconstitutional, this book provides a powerful antidote. Lawyers may hate Congress but Congress by another name is democracy, and without understanding how it works, lawyers will unwittingly find themselves participating in an interpretive endeavor that celebrates those who have lost over those who have won the legislative debate"--American law schools extol democracy but teach little about its most basic institution, the Congress. Interpreting statutes is lawyers' most basic task, but law professors rarely focus on how statutes are made. This misguided pedagogy, says Victoria Nourse, undercuts the core of legal practice. It may even threaten the continued functioning of American democracy, as contempt for the legislature becomes entrenched in legal education and judicial opinions. Misreading Law, Misreading Democracy turns a spotlight on lawyers' and judges' pervasive ignorance about how Congress makes law. Victoria Nourse not only offers a critique but proposes reforming the way lawyers learn how to interpret statutes by teaching legislative process. Statutes are legislative decisions, just as judicial opinions are decisions. Her approach, legislative decision theory, reverse-engineers the legislative process to simplify the task of finding Congress's meanings when statutes are ambiguous. This theory revolutionizes how we understand legislative history--not as an attempt to produce some vague notion of legislative intent but as a surgical strike for the best evidence of democratic context. Countering the academic view that the legislative process is irrational and unseemly, Nourse makes a forceful argument that lawyers must be educated about the basic procedures that define how Congress operates today. Lawmaking is a sequential process with political winners and losers. If lawyers and judges do not understand this, they may well embrace the meanings of those who opposed legislation rather than those who supported it, making legislative losers into judicial winners, and standing democracy on its head.Victoria Nourse argues that lawyers must be educated on the basic procedures that define how Congress operates today. Lawmaking creates winners and losers. If lawyers and judges do not understand this, they may embrace the meanings of those who opposed legislation, turning legislative losers into judicial winners and standing democracy on its head.
-
Misreading law, misreading democracy
Nourse, Victoria F.Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard University Press, 2016."Hating Congress but loving Democracy is a national passion. For those who apply law, whether lawyers or judges, it is an oxymoronic luxury neither can afford. One of the dirty secrets of the legal academy is that it teaches almost nothing to lawyers about how law is made in Congress. The results of this ignorance can be perverse and anti-democratic. No lawyer would confuse a dissenting judicial opinion with a majority opinion, but somehow lawyers and judges in famous cases have unwittingly confused the meanings of legislative losers and winners. For those lawyers and judges who have declared that reverting to Congress's records is shameful and unconstitutional, this book provides a powerful antidote. Lawyers may hate Congress but Congress by another name is democracy, and without understanding how it works, lawyers will unwittingly find themselves participating in an interpretive endeavor that celebrates those who have lost over those who have won the legislative debate"--American law schools extol democracy but teach little about its most basic institution, the Congress. Interpreting statutes is lawyers' most basic task, but law professors rarely focus on how statutes are made. This misguided pedagogy, says Victoria Nourse, undercuts the core of legal practice. It may even threaten the continued functioning of American democracy, as contempt for the legislature becomes entrenched in legal education and judicial opinions. Misreading Law, Misreading Democracy turns a spotlight on lawyers' and judges' pervasive ignorance about how Congress makes law. Victoria Nourse not only offers a critique but proposes reforming the way lawyers learn how to interpret statutes by teaching legislative process. Statutes are legislative decisions, just as judicial opinions are decisions. Her approach, legislative decision theory, reverse-engineers the legislative process to simplify the task of finding Congress's meanings when statutes are ambiguous. This theory revolutionizes how we understand legislative history--not as an attempt to produce some vague notion of legislative intent but as a surgical strike for the best evidence of democratic context. Countering the academic view that the legislative process is irrational and unseemly, Nourse makes a forceful argument that lawyers must be educated about the basic procedures that define how Congress operates today. Lawmaking is a sequential process with political winners and losers. If lawyers and judges do not understand this, they may well embrace the meanings of those who opposed legislation rather than those who supported it, making legislative losers into judicial winners, and standing democracy on its head.Victoria Nourse argues that lawyers must be educated on the basic procedures that define how Congress operates today. Lawmaking creates winners and losers. If lawyers and judges do not understand this, they may embrace the meanings of those who opposed legislation, turning legislative losers into judicial winners and standing democracy on its head.
-
Misreading law, misreading democracy
Nourse, Victoria F.Cambridge, Massachusetts : Harvard University Press, 2016."Hating Congress but loving Democracy is a national passion. For those who apply law, whether lawyers or judges, it is an oxymoronic luxury neither can afford. One of the dirty secrets of the legal academy is that it teaches almost nothing to lawyers about how law is made in Congress. The results of this ignorance can be perverse and anti-democratic. No lawyer would confuse a dissenting judicial opinion with a majority opinion, but somehow lawyers and judges in famous cases have unwittingly confused the meanings of legislative losers and winners. For those lawyers and judges who have declared that reverting to Congress's records is shameful and unconstitutional, this book provides a powerful antidote. Lawyers may hate Congress but Congress by another name is democracy, and without understanding how it works, lawyers will unwittingly find themselves participating in an interpretive endeavor that celebrates those who have lost over those who have won the legislative debate"--American law schools extol democracy but teach little about its most basic institution, the Congress. Interpreting statutes is lawyers' most basic task, but law professors rarely focus on how statutes are made. This misguided pedagogy, says Victoria Nourse, undercuts the core of legal practice. It may even threaten the continued functioning of American democracy, as contempt for the legislature becomes entrenched in legal education and judicial opinions. Misreading Law, Misreading Democracy turns a spotlight on lawyers' and judges' pervasive ignorance about how Congress makes law. Victoria Nourse not only offers a critique but proposes reforming the way lawyers learn how to interpret statutes by teaching legislative process. Statutes are legislative decisions, just as judicial opinions are decisions. Her approach, legislative decision theory, reverse-engineers the legislative process to simplify the task of finding Congress's meanings when statutes are ambiguous. This theory revolutionizes how we understand legislative history--not as an attempt to produce some vague notion of legislative intent but as a surgical strike for the best evidence of democratic context. Countering the academic view that the legislative process is irrational and unseemly, Nourse makes a forceful argument that lawyers must be educated about the basic procedures that define how Congress operates today. Lawmaking is a sequential process with political winners and losers. If lawyers and judges do not understand this, they may well embrace the meanings of those who opposed legislation rather than those who supported it, making legislative losers into judicial winners, and standing democracy on its head.Victoria Nourse argues that lawyers must be educated on the basic procedures that define how Congress operates today. Lawmaking creates winners and losers. If lawyers and judges do not understand this, they may embrace the meanings of those who opposed legislation, turning legislative losers into judicial winners and standing democracy on its head.
Online EBSCO University Press
Guides
Library website
Exhibits
EarthWorks
More search tools
Tools to help you discover resources at Stanford and beyond.
