Abstract
A current hotly contested jurisprudential point is the degree to which law constrains judges. Critical Legal Theorists suggest "Not much," arguing that there are no easy cases in that all cases can be legitimately decided either way. Professor Hegland disagrees. In this Essay, he continues an exchange with Professor Anthony D'Amato, a "Crit Deconstructionist." Professor Hegland examines the vibrant relationship between rule and outcome, the nature of communication, quantum physics and the possibility of innate ideas to conclude that legal rules do indeed constrain, not always, but often.
How to Cite
33 Ariz. L. Rev. 509 (1991)
5
Views
2
Downloads