{"title":"It'll Break Your Heart Every Time: Flood v. Kuhn , (Baseball) Romanticism and the Fallibility of Courts","authors":"John Tehranian","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2299002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The recent blockbuster 42 romanticizes the role of major league baseball in the civil rights movement. But Jackie Robinson’s shattering of the color line in 1947 represented only the first step in the game’s evolution. With considerably less fanfare, Curt Flood took the next step. Flood’s ill-fated challenge to the infamous reserve clause landed him before the United States Supreme Court in 1972. It’ll Break Your Heart Every Time casts new light on Flood’s underappreciated legal struggle by presenting a meta-meditation on his lawsuit, the fallibility of judges and the power of the National Pastime’s grand mythology. When the Supreme Court’s infamous decision in Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972), is cited for any one proposition, it is not for its key holding — the reaffirmation of baseball’s antitrust exemption. Rather, it has become exhibit A for the risks of slavish adherence to stare decisis. In the four decades since its pronouncement, the holding has never been completely overruled — either by the Supreme Court or Congress. And while the decision itself has received widespread condemnation elsewhere, legal, economic and policy analysts have generally failed to appreciate a critical first-order question about the case: how it happened and whether, in other circumstances, it could happen again. This Essay address these issues by examining the profound role of the National Pastime’s mythology and its spell-binding romanticism in the making of bad law. In the process, the Essay also raises broader jurisprudential questions about the nature of legal reasoning and the powerful lure of epistemological narratives, particularly in the struggle for civil rights.","PeriodicalId":81461,"journal":{"name":"Hofstra law review","volume":"46 1","pages":"8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hofstra law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2299002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The recent blockbuster 42 romanticizes the role of major league baseball in the civil rights movement. But Jackie Robinson’s shattering of the color line in 1947 represented only the first step in the game’s evolution. With considerably less fanfare, Curt Flood took the next step. Flood’s ill-fated challenge to the infamous reserve clause landed him before the United States Supreme Court in 1972. It’ll Break Your Heart Every Time casts new light on Flood’s underappreciated legal struggle by presenting a meta-meditation on his lawsuit, the fallibility of judges and the power of the National Pastime’s grand mythology. When the Supreme Court’s infamous decision in Flood v. Kuhn, 407 U.S. 258 (1972), is cited for any one proposition, it is not for its key holding — the reaffirmation of baseball’s antitrust exemption. Rather, it has become exhibit A for the risks of slavish adherence to stare decisis. In the four decades since its pronouncement, the holding has never been completely overruled — either by the Supreme Court or Congress. And while the decision itself has received widespread condemnation elsewhere, legal, economic and policy analysts have generally failed to appreciate a critical first-order question about the case: how it happened and whether, in other circumstances, it could happen again. This Essay address these issues by examining the profound role of the National Pastime’s mythology and its spell-binding romanticism in the making of bad law. In the process, the Essay also raises broader jurisprudential questions about the nature of legal reasoning and the powerful lure of epistemological narratives, particularly in the struggle for civil rights.
最近轰动一时的电影《42》将美国职业棒球大联盟在民权运动中的作用浪漫化。但是杰基·罗宾逊在1947年打破了种族界限,这只是篮球运动发展的第一步。科特·弗拉德低调地采取了下一步行动。弗勒德对臭名昭著的保留条款的挑战注定要失败,他于1972年在美国最高法院受审。《每次都让你心碎》通过对弗勒德的诉讼、法官的不忠以及橄榄球运动宏大神话的力量进行meta-meditation,重新审视了弗勒德被低估的法律斗争。当最高法院在弗勒德诉库恩案中臭名昭著的判决(407 U.S. 258(1972))被引用到任何一个命题时,它并不是为了它的关键观点——重申棒球的反垄断豁免。相反,它已经成为盲从决策风险的首要证据。在该判决宣布后的40年里,这一判决从未被最高法院或国会完全推翻。尽管这一判决本身在其他地方受到了广泛谴责,但法律、经济和政策分析人士普遍未能理解此案的一个关键的一级问题:它是如何发生的,以及在其他情况下,它是否会再次发生。本文通过考察国家娱乐的神话及其在制定坏法律中引人入胜的浪漫主义的深刻作用来解决这些问题。在此过程中,本文还提出了更广泛的法理学问题,涉及法律推理的本质和认识论叙事的强大诱惑,特别是在争取民权的斗争中。