Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2012

Abstract

This article is a response to the law review article cited in its title. It focuses on a corollary question raised by the article's analysis: if one takes seriously the proposition that it may make sense for elected judges to interpret statutes differently than do appointed judges, should judicial opinions written by elected judges look substantially different from those written by appointed judges? Part I examines the relative roles of judicial opinions written by elected versus appointed judges in a world in which divergence is practiced. Part II explores specific ways in which we might want or expect an elected judge's statutory opinions, and use of interpretive tools, to differ from an appointed judge's in light of the electoral connection and the need for public understanding.

Share

COinS