The Supreme Court, the Supreme Law of the Land, and Attorney General Meese: A Comment

Article by Mark Tushnet

The news reports of responses to Attorney General Meese's speech at Tulane University were filled with phrases like “it would produce anarchy”' and “at war with the rule of law.”' Meese's critics insisted that his views were political. Perhaps that was precisely what put those views at odds with the rule of law. That is, critics intimated that Meese's position would reduce law to politics—“unprincipled”' value choices seen as expressions of personal preference. At the same time, the news reports noted that his position had “‘respectable historical antecedents”’ and “line by line,”' was not obviously wrong. Indeed, as I will argue, for virtually all of the subjects it addressed, the speech was obviously correct, and for the rest, it was probably right. What then was it that set off the criticisms?


About the Author

Mark Tushnet. Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center.

Citation

61 Tul. L. Rev. 1017 (1987)