The Supreme Court has been, on balance, a more negative than positive influence on our country throughout its historyThank goodness lower-quality law schools have not been, on balance, a more negative than positive influence on our country. And second:
The idea that justices bring neutral, objective legal principles to the task of “divining” the true meaning and purpose of the language in the statutes and the Constitution is bunk.Thank goodness lower-quality law schools have promoted the idea that they bring non-profit, public service principles to the task of "educating" America's lawyers. Because that's totally not bunk. Or something. If you can come up with a better parallel analogy thingamajig, fill it in for me.
Such observations aside, it's obvious that Chemerinsky has earned his place as a top scholar of constitutional law. Take this observation about the heinous group of Supreme Court cases that seem vile in retrospect, such as Plessy or Korematsu:
For years, Chemerinsky said, he had taught these cases, which are all understood in retrospect to have been miscarriages of justice, as if they were anomalies. But by explaining them that way, he said, “I realized I had been making excuses for the Supreme Court.”Because this totally isn't the type of conclusion one could come to after a mere semester of Con law. It takes years of studious inquiry during ten-hour work weeks poring over the 4500 words of the Constitution, treating each one the way PhDs treat War and Peace subplots.
Well, I'm off to hit the open road with two strippers and a crack pipe. Remember, I'll make a great DA some day.