E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
No, not because he played Rudolph Abel in Bridge of Spies. But because he had the same line several times during the movie -- "Would it help?," -- and each time he gave it a different reading, which means that each time the same three words meant something different. At the most basic level, what his performance of that line (those lines?) shows is that context matters: "Would it help?" in one context means something different from "Would it help?" in another.
But I think there's something more to be said. A few years ago I saw a production of "Waiting for Godot," and realized/understood something that serious literary critics probably had known for a long time. To put it somewhat crudely: Each and every line in the play could be given widely different readings, and one reading having been given to a specific line, the next line could still be given widely different readings. In that sense there is no single play "Waiting for Godot," but an enormously large number, with variant readings of lines throughout.
Now go back to constitutional theory and Ronald Dworkin's account of the law as a chain novel, in which what was written just before you come on the scene powerfully limits what you can plausibly add to the novel. If "Waiting for Godot" is the model for literary composition, then the analogy between law and a chain novel doesn't establish what Dworkin apparently thought it did: What came before doesn't constrain what comes after much if at all.
Put in somewhat more traditional terms, which I associate with Karl Llewellyn and Jan Deutsch, we know what has come before only by seeing what comes after. What a precedent or other legal text (the Constitution and statutes, specifically) means is something we can know only after we have used/applied/worked with the text.