An Appeal to Books

IF 2.1 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Amirkhani Ali
{"title":"An Appeal to Books","authors":"Amirkhani Ali","doi":"10.36644/mlr.121.6.foreword","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This feels a fit, even urgent, moment to celebrate our books and the role they play vis-à-vis the law, the courts, and the truth. As this issue goes to print, our nation’s highest court faces forceful criticism that some of its most significant decisions have been detached from objective fact. In recent Terms, the Supreme Court’s majority has doubled down on deciding major constitutional questions based on “history and tradition”—that is, the majority’s understanding of what the nation was like centuries ago. Just as quickly as these justices praised the objectivity of their fealty to history, they met widespread rebuke from historians. These actual experts in history observed that the Court’s work fails basic standards for historical analysis and distorts historical facts toward a particular end. This occurs at a time when public confidence in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low, and concern for the spread of misinformation is high and rising.","PeriodicalId":47790,"journal":{"name":"Michigan Law Review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Michigan Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36644/mlr.121.6.foreword","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This feels a fit, even urgent, moment to celebrate our books and the role they play vis-à-vis the law, the courts, and the truth. As this issue goes to print, our nation’s highest court faces forceful criticism that some of its most significant decisions have been detached from objective fact. In recent Terms, the Supreme Court’s majority has doubled down on deciding major constitutional questions based on “history and tradition”—that is, the majority’s understanding of what the nation was like centuries ago. Just as quickly as these justices praised the objectivity of their fealty to history, they met widespread rebuke from historians. These actual experts in history observed that the Court’s work fails basic standards for historical analysis and distorts historical facts toward a particular end. This occurs at a time when public confidence in the Supreme Court is at an all-time low, and concern for the spread of misinformation is high and rising.
对书籍的呼吁
这是一个恰当的、甚至是紧迫的时刻,来赞美我们的书籍,以及它们在-à-vis法律、法庭和真相面前所扮演的角色。在本期杂志付印之际,我们国家的最高法院面临着强有力的批评,认为它的一些最重要的决定脱离了客观事实。在最近的任期里,最高法院的多数派根据“历史和传统”——也就是多数派对几个世纪前国家状况的理解——在决定重大宪法问题上的立场翻了一番。就在这些法官称赞他们忠于历史的客观性的同时,他们也遭到了历史学家的广泛指责。这些真正的历史专家指出,最高法院的工作没有达到历史分析的基本标准,而且为了达到特定目的而歪曲历史事实。这发生在公众对最高法院的信心处于历史最低点的时候,对错误信息传播的担忧很高,而且还在上升。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
3.70%
发文量
38
期刊介绍: The Michigan Law Review is a journal of legal scholarship. Eight issues are published annually. Seven of each volume"s eight issues ordinarily are composed of two major parts: Articles by legal scholars and practitioners, and Notes written by the student editors. One issue in each volume is devoted to book reviews. Occasionally, special issues are devoted to symposia or colloquia. First Impressions, the online companion to the Michigan Law Review, publishes op-ed length articles by academics, judges, and practitioners on current legal issues. This extension of the printed journal facilitates quick dissemination of the legal community’s initial impressions of important judicial decisions, legislative developments, and timely legal policy issues.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信