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
Independence, Accountability, the Rule of Law, and American Political Development
Mark Tushnet
This is a non-snarky follow-up to my previous post. I take it to be accurate to say that in contemporary U.S. political discourse there's a preference for Republican investigators of alleged high-level wrong-doing. I think the reason is that over the past several decades Republican publicists have successfully propagated the idea that Democrats (scholars for sure, but judges and lawyers as well) hold a theory of law that is simultaneously overtly and deeply political, whereas Republicans (scholars, judges, and lawyers) adhere to a disinterested "rule of law" ideal. (For an example of the latter, see former judge Michael Luttig's commencement speech, and for a comment on a recent talk by Justice Alito, see this astute comment.)
There's now a fair amount of good scholarship on the Republican side of this discourse, including Stephen Teles's book, The Rise of the Conservative Movement, and more recently Ideas with Consequences by Amanda Hollis-Brusky. What we need (as scholars), I think, is something explaining the failure of Democrats to effectively counter the Republican narrative. Part of the explanation may be simple: The Republican narrative, insofar as it deals with Democrats is accurate. But, Democratic leaning scholars have certainly challenged the Republican narrative about themselves (see for example this and this.) Why hasn't the Democratic challenge had the same kind of legs as the Republican narrative? (I'm interested in institutional-type answers, like foundation support and NGO activity.)