Some academic critics say the Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision is the latest in a string of decisions in which the Court has insisted that litigants be accorded individual rather than group or batch consideration, even though “a more collectivist view,” as Connecticut lawprof Alexandra Lahav contends, would carry with it more “potential for social reform.” I take up this charge, and defend the Court, at Cato at Liberty. More: John Steele at Legal Ethics Forum, with a link to Samuel Issacharoff’s work.
2 Comments
…Am I correct in assuming that this professor thinks that the courts having more “potential for social reform” is somehow a good thing?
(snark on)
Well now, let’s just apply the professors desired “…collectivist view…” to criminal law. If the crime rate in an area is too high, every body in the area is a criminal and goes to jail.
(snark off)
Oh, that’s right….collectivist views only apply when they advance the agenda of the law profs….. (smacks self on head with hand).