DOCSLIB.ORG

February 18, 2009 Unfair Times Call for PILC Fair Economy Prompts Schools to Emulate NYU’S EIW Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
February 18, 2009 Unfair Times Call for PILC Fair Economy Prompts Schools to Emulate NYU’S EIW Program THE COMMEN T A T OR Vol. XLII, No. 9 The Student Newspaper of the New York University School of Law February 18, 2009 Unfair Times Call for PILC Fair Economy Prompts Schools to Emulate NYU’s EIW Program BY MOLLY WALLACE ’10 grams simultaneously, that could mean coming up with as many as With the economy faltering, one hundred employees to staff the law schools are doing what they recruiting programs of the top-ten can to ensure that their students get law schools. And yet more will be jobs. As a result, many of NYU’s needed to attend the programs of peer schools have rearranged their schools outside the top ten. interviewing schedules to get their During a normal work week, students matched up with employ- finding so many attorneys and ers as early as possible. The law staff at one time would be a tall schools at Harvard, Yale, and Uni- order. In mid-August it might be a versity of Chicago, among others, miracle. Summer camps are over have shifted their interview weeks but school has not yet started, to take place in August where in so attorneys with children often years past they have been held in need this time off to tend to their late September and October. families. High school and college Early interview week (EIW) students who normally work as programs in 2009 may look more babysitters also tend to be out of Students from 21 law schools meet representatives from more than 80 organizations at “table talk” in Greenberg or less the same for students as be- town, so even those who would Lounge on Friday, February 6. The annual PILC Fair typically helps many 1Ls find summer employment. fore, but firms will struggle to keep like to hire childcare may find the interview weeks adequately themselves short-staffed. BY DANIELLE ESCONTRIAS ’11 government, non-profit, and pri- they might not have otherwise staffed. As many as eight of the top The implications of parent- vate organizations. considered, drop off resumes law schools will be holding their attorneys taking this time off may The 32nd annual Public Inter- In order to be selected by an with new employers, or talk interview programs at the same affect students who hope to get a est Career Fair, sponsored by the organization for interview, stu- to employers that didn’t select time on some days. Large firms sense of work/life balance during Public Interest Law Center, took dents submitted cover letters and them after reviewing their traditionally send eight to twelve their callbacks. In New York, pub- place at NYU beginning on Thurs- resumes to the organizations of resumes. It also provided or- lawyers and recruiters to staff each lic schools do not start until after day, February 5. The Fair, which their interest through the PILC ganizations an opportunity to school’s interview program; with was held over the course of two Career Fair’s website. The orga- meet with more students and so many schools holding their pro- See INTERVIEW page 4 days, is the largest public interest nizations could then select the to advertise their organiza- career fair in the nation. It hosted students they were most inter- tion. Eighty-six organizations students from 21 participating ested in to interview. However, showed up on the first day for law schools from New York, Con- the Fair didn’t just provide for table talk, and 89 participated MALDEF President necticut, New Jersey, and Rhode scheduled interviews; employ- the second day. Island, and 196 employers from ers also took place in an event Student lunches were New York, California, Hawaii, called “table talk.” also offered at the Fair. The Has High Hopes for Illinois, and Texas, among other Table talk gave students a states. These employers included chance to meet with organizations See FAIR page 5 New Administration entitled “National Immigration Policy in the New Administra- Change We Can Breathe In tion,” but he also touched on many other issues facing the nation’s BY DAN MEYLER ’09 administration, through Vice- Journal of Law & Liberty Latino community. Dean Barry Friedman, urged the and the Journal of Law & Trasviña said clearly that In response to a memo editors to send a memo to Dean Business.” he is “optimistic about the new signed by the editors-in-chief Ricky Revesz documenting the According to Paul administration.” He has worked of the law journals and the chair problem. “The school has to O’Grady, Associate Director with President Barack Obama in of Moot Court, the Dean’s Of- respond once there is a written for Student Affairs, contrac- the past, and the story is telling. fice initiated renovations last record,” said Friedman. tors took air-readings and Obama, along with Vice President week to the sub-basement of The “Smell Memo,” as it determined the air quality was Joe Biden and Secretary of State D’Agostino Hall, where the was called by the authors, urged safe, though they acknowl- Hillary Clinton, voted for the journals are housed, to eliminate the school to fix the problem edged the strong, foul stench. Secure Fence Act of 2006, legisla- the foul smell that had long so journals could better build Con Edison sealed off electri- tion Trasviña quipped was better plagued the work space. community by making the jour- cal conduits that supply the named the “Secure Re-election The smell had been described nal offices a pleasant place to building’s main electrical BY MARK WEINER ’11 Act.” The vote angered many of as “garbage-like” and “similar to work and interact. The memo feeds—a potential source of then-Senator Obama’s Chicago raw sewage” by students work- described the problem as “es- the odor—from the outside, A packed crowd filled Van- residents, particularly its Latino ing in the journal offices. When pecially severe for the journals derbilt Hall’s Greenburg Lounge community. To build a bridge with confronted with the problem, the in the center cubicle area, the See ODOR page 5 on Monday, February 9, 2009 for that growing community, Obama the inaugural Bickel & Brewer set up a meeting with MALDEF Latinos and the Law Lecture. John and Trasviña at which he promised Trasviña, Stanford Law School to work together in the future. graduate and president and general “In a non-Senator-like move,” Legal Briefs counsel of the Mexican American Trasviña said, “Mr. Obama then Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), gave a talk See TRASVIÑA page 4 Law professor Peggy Davis, who runs the Lawyer- ing Program at NYU, was named one of the three most influential people in legal education by theNational Jurist. The publication also honored Frederick Schauer Feeling low? Reading about Michael Phelps will get you high. at UVA and David Van Zandt at Northwestern. page 2 Thursday, February 12 saw over 800 individuals For the first time in 42 years, The Commentator in the American legal profession lose their jobs. does some investigative reporting. And it’s about the state of the journals. page 4 Unsurprisingly, the National Law Journal is Infra predicting more layoffs in the coming weeks. See infra page 7 for details on where the fir- Rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper, paper ings occurred. beats rock. NYU Law knows this mantra well. page 8 Commentator Op/Eds Page 2 February 18, 2009 Banneth the Laptopeth! Phelps Photo Brings “Just Say No” into Question TO THE ED ITOR : Without the laptop, you take BY MICHAEL MIX ’11 It’s hard fewer notes and then have fewer f o r m e t o I am writing to put an end piles of future trash to sort through When I was in elementary side strongly to the debate over laptops in the come exam time. I am not a glut- school, our cafeteria included a with any of classroom: they should be ruth- ton for punishment. I like to make giant “Just Say No” sign. Made those views. lessly banned from all classes. That studying a streamlined affair (and famous by a Nancy Reagan On one hand, otherwise reasonable people can good lawyers know how to simplify quip, the purpose of the “Just Phelps’s folly even differ over this issue shocks things, right?). It’s easier to study if Say No” campaign was to was a youth- me, but that these reasonable people you have less to study. empower kids to reject drugs. ful indis- would dare speak out in favor of As to the “but class is booooor- Unfortunately for the organiz- cretion that laptops in the classroom causes ing” critique, first: there is nothing ers of the campaign, no one ever many people me to consider folding in half and more boring than the internet. told the students in my school commit fre- placing myself in a soft velour car- Everyone prefers to be actively en- what the sign was for. Instead, quently. On rying case. gaged in something than to be kill- kids used to joke that whenever t h e o t h e r, Here’s why: you’re not sup- ing time reading Slate. But what’s they were in sight of the sign, Phelps is one posed to take any notes in class. No that you say? You have a poor the only word they could say of the most one tells you that as a 1L, and many imagination and can’t get into the was “no.” As in, “Do you prefer famous ath- people come to law school mistaken. way the boring professor teaches? Fruit by the Foot or Fruit Roll- letes in the But there is absolutely nothing to The solution: participate in class.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Intrastatutory Federalism and Statutory Interpretation: State Implementation of Federal Law in Health Reform and Beyond
    THE YALE LAW JOURNAL ABBE R. GLUCK Intrastatutory Federalism and Statutory Interpretation: State Implementation of Federal Law in Health Reform and Beyond ABSTRACT. State implementation of federal law is commonplace, but has been largely ignored by the interpretive doctrines of legislation and administrative law. We have no Chevron, federalism canon, or anything else for state implementation, nor any doctrines that ask how Congress's decisions to delegate implementation duties to states should affect how ambiguous statutes should be interpreted. For theories of federalism, state implementation raises a different question, namely, whether this "intrastatutory federalism" -an informal federalism that comes from the inside of federal statutes -is something that doctrine should protect. The prevailing functional and sovereignty accounts of federalism seem less relevant for a federalism that comes at the grace of Congress; this federalism belongs to the domain of statutory interpretation. This Essay argues that state implementation of federal law plays many different roles, and that those differences should affect both how statutes are interpreted and how they are conceived from a federalism perspective. Sometimes state implementation effectuates traditional federalism values like experimentation, but at other times it seems to serve more nationalizing functions, like statutory entrenchment and even federal law encroachment. This variety poses challenges for legislation doctrine, because the prevailing canons of interpretation are not designed to capture such differences, and it illustrates that the broad category of cooperative federalism is more nuanced than commonly acknowledged. AUTHO R. Associate Professor of Law and Milton Handler Fellow, Columbia Law School. Many of the ideas in this Essay arose in response to Bill Eskridge and John Ferejohn's terrific book, A Republic ofStatutes, and also took shape in conversations with Alan Weil.
    [Show full text]
  • Hamline Law Review 2009 Symposium
    Hamline Law Review 2009 Symposium April 3, 2009 Klas Center, Hamline University The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act – Searching for the Crossroads of Safety and Innovation In a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Riegel v. Medtronic, the opportunity to bring state tort claims against medical device manufacturers that make FDA-approved devices diminished significantly due to a preemption clause in the Medical Device Amendments to the FDCA. This ruling answered questions presented by a 1996 decision in which the Supreme Court faced, but choose to disallow preemption of, similar claims against a device that had been grandfathered into the market under a provision of the Amendments. After the most recent ruling, courts around the country have seen a flood of court filings from device manufacturers seeking dismissals of state personal injury suits against their products. The decision additionally spurred threats from Congress to introduce legislation to overturn the decision – which it has since done with the presentation of the Medical Device Safety Act of 2008. The Supreme Court heard arguments this fall in Wyeth v. Levine, a case involving federal preemption of state tort claims against drug manufacturers and their FDA-approved labeling. Because the FDCA's drug provisions do not explicitly preempt state law claims, but do require FDA pre-market approval of all new drugs, one must wonder if the Court will continue on this path of state tort law constriction. Symposium Sponsored by: Schedule 8:00-8:30 Registration 8:30-8:50 Introduction Dean Don
    [Show full text]
  • Announcements of a Torts Conference
    TORT LAW AND THE MODERN STATE Sponsored by Columbia Law School & Randolph Speakers Fund In connection with the launch of the peer-reviewed Journal of Tort Law Jules Coleman, Yale, Editor in Chief ◦ Mark Geistfeld, NYU John C. P. Goldberg, Vanderbilt ◦ Ronen Perry, University of Haifa Catherine M. Sharkey, Columbia ◦ Benjamin C. Zipursky, Fordham The Conference will bring together many of the world’s most prominent tort scholars representing a range of perspectives and methodologies including comparative, economic, empirical, historical, institutional, and philosophical analysis. For millennia, legal systems have provided, under one name or another, remedies for injuries traceable to the acts of others. The modern law of tort in the Anglo-American system traces its roots to the establishment of the Writ of Trespass in the 13th century. Despite wide variations in substance and significance, the core idea that the legal system ought to grant citizens private rights of action against other citizens and government officials is woven deeply into the fabric of modern law. Yet, given that the state, the economy, and the society in which tort law operates has changed so markedly, particularly in the last 150 years, it is important to consider the potential implications of these changes. ● Is tort law best understood as a historical accident—a primitive form of regulation that was useful in pre-modern times, but that now ought to give way to modern alternatives that can incorporate superior information-gathering and expertise? Or is tort in some
    [Show full text]
  • The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Presents
    ADMIN_LAW_AGENCY_PREEMPTION_PANEL_363-388 (REV - O'SCANNLAIN) 4/17/2008 6:15 PM The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy presents AGENCY PREEMPTION: SPEAK SOFTLY, BUT CARRY A BIG STICK? 2006 National Lawyer’s Convention November 18, 2006 PANELISTS: Hon. Ronald A. Cass, President, Cass & Associates, PC and Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law Professor Thomas W. Merrill, Columbia University School of Law Professor Catherine M. Sharkey, New York University School of Law Hon. Daniel E. Troy, Sidley Austin and Former Chief Counsel, United States Food & Drug Administration Hon. Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, United States Circuit Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (moderator) JUDGE O’SCANNLAIN: It is a great pleasure for me to welcome you to our panel today, entitled “Agency Preemption: Speak Softly, but Carry a Big Stick?” As moderator, my task is twofold. First, I hope to frame the panel discussion by reference to preemption law generally, as well as recent events and developments in agency preemption. Secondly, I hope to convince you of the enormous importance of this otherwise arcane topic, because, while it may sound esoteric, it goes to the heart of the constitutional order, in my view. As one scholar explained, the extent to which a federal statute displaces state law affects both the subs- tantive legal rules under which we live and the distribution of authority be- tween the states and the federal government. 363 ADMIN_LAW_AGENCY_PREEMPTION_PANEL_363-388 (rev - O'Scannlain) 4/17/2008 6:15 PM 364 Chapman Law Review [Vol. 11:363 Speaking generally, there are three types of preemption: express preemption, applied field preemption, and implied conflict preemption.
    [Show full text]
  • A 90 Day Study a History of Our Country's Judicial System The
    A 90 Day Study A History of Our Country’s Judicial System The United States Supreme Court: Landmark Decisions and the Justices Who Made Them February 20, 2017 – June 19, 2017 Featuring Essays by Constituting America’s Guest Constitutional Scholars 2 The United States Supreme Court: Landmark Decisions And The Justices Who Made Them Constitutional Scholar Essayists Steven H. Aden, Senior Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom James D. Best, Author of Tempest at Dawn, a novel about the 1787 Constitutional Convention; Principled Action, Lessons from the Origins of the American Republic Robert Lowry Clinton, Professor and Chair Emeritus, Department of Political Science, Southern Illinois University Carbondale; Author, Marbury v. Madison; Judicial Review Daniel A. Cotter, Adjunct Professor, The John Marshall Law School; Immediate Past President, The Chicago Bar Association Marshall DeRosa, Professor of Political Science, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida Nick Dranias, President, Compact for America Educational Foundation The Honorable David Eastman, State Representative, Alaska House of Representatives; West Point graduate, former Captain, United States Army; Firefighter Richard Epstein, Inaugural Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University School of Law; Peter and Kirstin Bedford Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution Allen C. Guelzo, Henry R. Luce Professor of the Civil War Era, and Professor of History, Gettysburg College; Author, Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation: The End of Slavery in America Joseph Knippenberg, Professor
    [Show full text]
  • REMARKS of HON. GUIDO Calabresit
    REMARKS OF HON. GUIDO CALABRESIt HON. GULDO CALABRESI* It is great to be here, both because it is always nice to come to NYU, and also because it is nice to see so many friends, old and new, among the people who are visiting NYU. Today, we are talk- ing about preemption. This issue deals not just with the question of torts and pharmaceuticals: It deals with some of the deepest ques- tions we have before us in terms of regulation and incentives in a time of crisis. It seems to me, speaking as an academic and not as a judge, that there has been a tendency for courts to view the topic of pre- emption very narrowly and to lose many of the nuances that are really involved. Judges view preemption questions in terms of the case coming before them, and they give binary, yes or no, answers. But most of the issues are more complicated. I am going to try to sort out some of these issues, which are often conflated in the cases. The first question that has to be asked is: Does national central- ized decision-making, as between safety and accidents-and as to who bears the cost of safety or the cost of accidents-work better than local, diverse, and diffuse decision-making? Does one want lo- calities deciding these questions in a variety of different ways, both in terms of who bears the cost and what the cost-benefit is, or is the decision best made nationally and uniformly? This question has several different aspects to it.
    [Show full text]
  • Clearing the Smoke from Philip Morris V. Williams: the Past, Present, and Future of Punitive Damages
    THOMAS B. COLBY Clearing the Smoke from Philip Morris v. Williams: The Past, Present, and Future of Punitive Damages A B ST R A CT. In Philip Morris USA v. Williams, the Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not permit the imposition of punitive damages to punish a defendant for harm caused to third parties. This Article critiques the reasoning, but seeks ultimately to vindicate the result, of that landmark decision. It argues that, although the Court's procedural due process analysis does not stand up to scrutiny, punitive damages as punishment for third-party harm do indeed violate procedural due process, but for reasons far more profound than those offered by the Court. To reach that conclusion, the Article confronts the most basic and fundamental questions about punitive damages -questions that the Supreme Court has studiously avoided for more than a century: what, exactly, is the purpose of punitive damages, and how is it constitutional to impose them as a form of punishment in a judicial proceeding without affording the defendant the protection of the Constitution's criminal procedural safeguards? The Article argues that punitive damages are properly conceptualized as a form of punishment for private wrongs: judicially sanctioned private revenge. As such, it makes both theoretical and doctrinal sense to impose them without affording the defendant criminal procedural protections, which are necessitated only for the punishment of public wrongs on behalf of society. When, however, courts employ punitive damages as a form of punishment for public wrongs, they become a substitute for the criminal law, which thus makes an intolerable end run around the Bill of Rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Reflections on Juryphobia and Medical Malpractice Reform
    Civil Juries and Civil Justice Brian H. Bornstein l Richard L. Wiener Robert F. Schopp l Steven L. Willborn Editors Civil Juries and Civil Justice Psychological and Legal Perspectives Editors Brian H. Bornstein Richard L. Wiener Dept. of Psychology Dept. of Psychology University of Nebraska-Lincoln College of Law 335 Burnett Hall University of Nebraska-Lincoln Lincoln, NE 68588-0308 335 Burnett Hall Lincoln, NE 68588-0308 Robert F. Schopp Steven L. Willborn College of Law College of Law University of Nebraska-Lincoln University of Nebraska-Lincoln 1875 North 42nd Street 42nd and Fair Streets Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 Lincoln, NE 68583-0902 Library of Congress Control Number: 2007934921 ISBN: 978-0-387-74488-9 e-ISBN: 978-0-387-74490-2 # 2008 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC All rights reserved. This work may not be translated or copied in whole or in part without the written permission of the publisher (Springer Science+Business Media, LLC., 233 Spring Street, New York, NY10013, USA), except for brief excerpts in connection with reviews or scholarly analysis. Use in connection with any form of information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed is forbidden. The use in this publication of trade names, trademarks, service marks, and similar terms, even if they are not identified as such, is not to be taken as an expression of opinion as to whether or not they are subject to proprietary rights. Printed on acid-free paper 987654321 springer.com Preface People suffer injuries all the time: at work, at home, at play, while driving downtown—the list of ways to hurt oneself is endless.
    [Show full text]
  • Faculty Biographies
    Faculty Biographies Stephen Daniels is a Senior Research Professor at the American Bar Foundation and holds a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His research focuses on law and public policy, the various aspects of the American civil justice system, the legal profession, and legal education. He has written on trial courts, juries, plaintiffs' lawyers, the politics of civil justice reform (including the areas of medical malpractice, products liability, and punitive damages), and innovation in legal education. He has testified before congressional and state legislative committees on the subject of civil justice reform, served as an expert in cases dealing with large jury awards and/or constitutional challenges to civil justice reform, and recently served as the consultant/reporter for the American Bar Association’s Task Force on the Financing of Legal Education. His most recent publication, co-authored with Joanne Martin, is Tort Reform, Plaintiffs’ Lawyers, and Access to Justice (University Press of Kansas: 2015). Richard Freer is the Robert Howell Hall Professor of Law at Emory. He is author or co-author of 16 books, including widely-adopted casebooks in Civil Procedure and Complex Litigation. He is the only academic to serve as contributing author to both of the standard multivolume treatises on federal jurisdiction and practice: Moore’s Federal Practice (two volumes) and Wright & Miller’s Federal Practice and Procedure (four volumes). He is a lifetime member of the American Law Institute and served as an adviser to the Institute’s Federal Judicial Code Project. Before joining the Emory faculty in 1983, Professor Freer clerked for Hon.
    [Show full text]
  • Tort Law Inside out Abstract
    CRISTINA CARMODY TILLEY Tort Law Inside Out abstract. For more than a century, scholars have been looking at tort law from the outside in. Theorists committed to external goals like efficient allocation of resources or moral justice have treated tort as a mere vehicle for the achievement of their policy preferences, rather than as a body of law with a discernible internal purpose. It is time to revisit tort on its own terms. This Article takes its cue from the New Doctrinalists, who urge that extralegal normative insights from fields such as economics or philosophy aid adjudication only when they are directly tethered to legal concepts; that is, to doctrine. Scrutinizing tort doctrine yields a surprising in- sight: tort law is not primarily concerned with efficiency or morality, as the instrumentalists have long contended, but with community. A linguistic study of the Restatement of Torts reveals that doctrine alludes to community more frequently and more comprehensively than it does to any other justificatory concept. Specifically, throughout the Restatement’s discussion of negligence, strict liability, and intentional wrongs, doctrine disfavors stating interpersonal duties in positive terms, preferring to let them float with community values. Consequently, tort operates as a vehi- cle through which communities perpetually reexamine and communicate their values, encourag- ing individuals to coordinate private relationships without undue state involvement. Tort law’s stated goal is to construct community. Moreover, tort doctrine acknowledges that two distinct kinds of community—closed and open—can generate the values that govern resolu- tion of interpersonal disputes. Accordingly, tort doctrine embeds a choice between the morality norms of traditional, closed communities and the efficiency norms of the modern, open commu- nity, depending on whether the dispute is local or national in scope.
    [Show full text]
  • Hon. Guido Calabresi U.S
    NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW – INSTITUTE OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION (IJA) Oral History of Distinguished American Judges HON. GUIDO CALABRESI U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT An Interview with Catherine M. Sharkey, Crystal Eastman Professor of Law New York University School of Law Kenji Yoshino, Chief Justice Earl Warren Professor of Constitutional Law New York University School of Law June 23, 2017 All rights in this oral history interview belong to New York University. Quoting or excerpting of this oral history interview is permitted as long as the quotation or excerpt is limited to fair use as defined by law. For quotations or excerpts that exceed fair use, permission must be obtained from the Institute of Judicial Administration (IJA ) at Wilf Hall, 139 Macdougal Street, Room 420, New York 10012, or to [email protected], and should identify the specific passages to be quoted, intended use, and identification of the user. Any permission granted will comply with a greements made with t he interviewees and/or interviewers who participated in this oral history. All permitted uses must cite and give proper credit to: IJA Oral History of Distinguished American Judges, Institute of Judicial Administration, NYU School of Law, Judge Guido Calabresi: An Interview with Catherine Sharkey and Kenji Yoshino, 2017. * The transcript shall control over the video for any permitted use in accordance with the above paragraph. Any differences in the transcript from the video reflect post-interview clarifications made by the participants and IJA. The footnotes were added by IJA solely for the reader’s information; no representation is made as to the accuracy or completeness of any of such footnotes.
    [Show full text]
  • Tort Law Inside Out
    CRISTINA CARMODY TILLEY Tort Law Inside Out A B ST R AC T. For more than a century, scholars have been looking at tort law from the outside in. Theorists committed to external goals like efficient allocation of resources or moral justice have treated tort as a mere vehicle for the achievement of their policy preferences, rather than as a body of law with a discernible internal purpose. It is time to revisit tort on its own terms. This Article takes its cue from the New Doctrinalists, who urge that extralegal normative insights from fields such as economics or philosophy aid adjudication only when they are directly tethered to legal concepts; that is, to doctrine. Scrutinizing tort doctrine yields a surprising in- sight: tort law is not primarily concerned with efficiency or morality, as the instrumentalists have long contended, but with community. A linguistic study of the Restatement of Torts reveals that doctrine alludes to community more frequently and more comprehensively than it does to any other justificatory concept. Specifically, throughout the Restatement's discussion of negligence, strict liability, and intentional wrongs, doctrine disfavors stating interpersonal duties in positive terms, preferring to let them float with community values. Consequently, tort operates as a vehi- cle through which communities perpetually reexamine and communicate their values, encourag- ing individuals to coordinate private relationships without undue state involvement. Tort law's stated goal is to construct community. Moreover, tort doctrine acknowledges that two distinct kinds of community - closed and open - can generate the values that govern resolu- tion of interpersonal disputes. Accordingly, tort doctrine embeds a choice between the morality norms of traditional, closed communities and the efficiency norms of the modern, open commu- nity, depending on whether the dispute is local or national in scope.
    [Show full text]