Mark V. Tushnet: Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, B.A., Harvard University (1967); M.A., Yale University (1971); J.D., Yale University (1971)
Author's note: Readers should know that, by arrangement with the editors of the Review, this article is adapted from the draft of a chapter of a work in progress, tentatively entitled Red, White, and Blue: A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Law. Michael Perry's book is one of the topics discussed in the chapter. To make it possible for one to read this article without reading the rest of the work, I have repeated some of the fundamentals of my analysis even though they have appeared elsewhere. Those who notice the repetitions are accurate and have my apologies. Though I have tried to eliminate the references to other parts of the manuscript, some of my broader conclusions rest on arguments developed there. I have retained some of those conclusions, knowing that they are not fully supported in this article.
Recommended Citation
Tushnet, Mark V.
(1983)
"Legal Realism, Structural Review, and Prophecy,"
University of Dayton Law Review: Vol. 8:
No.
3, Article 13.
Available at:
https://ecommons.udayton.edu/udlr/vol8/iss3/13
Comments
Mark V. Tushnet: Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, B.A., Harvard University (1967); M.A., Yale University (1971); J.D., Yale University (1971)
Author's note: Readers should know that, by arrangement with the editors of the Review, this article is adapted from the draft of a chapter of a work in progress, tentatively entitled Red, White, and Blue: A Critical Analysis of Constitutional Law. Michael Perry's book is one of the topics discussed in the chapter. To make it possible for one to read this article without reading the rest of the work, I have repeated some of the fundamentals of my analysis even though they have appeared elsewhere. Those who notice the repetitions are accurate and have my apologies. Though I have tried to eliminate the references to other parts of the manuscript, some of my broader conclusions rest on arguments developed there. I have retained some of those conclusions, knowing that they are not fully supported in this article.