Law Without Values : The Life, Work, and Legacy of Justice Holmes

Rating:
Summary: Judging the Past
Review: In his own day, Holmes was revered as the greatest, wisest judge in the English-speaking world. Today, however, Holmes' significance is downplayed in law schools across America, or he is trashed as he is in this book. The dramatic decline in Holmes' popularity and influence has resulted from his opinion in a single case, Buck v. Bell (1927), in which Holmes advocated sterilization of "imbeciles." Since the Holocaust, sterilization is understandably unpopular, especially among Jews, who dominate the faculties at America's top law schools and write many widely-used casebooks. Holmes, who wrote his opinion in Buck v. Bell long before the Holocaust, has been lumped into the Nazi camp (the Nazis tried to use Buck v. Bell at Nuernberg to defend their practices) by modern liberals, and many so-called "legal scholars" now dismiss Holmes' ideas without consideration and do not include his opinions in their casebooks. One of the central tenets of historiography is that it is improper to judge historical figures by the moral standards of today. Alschuler violates this principle again and again--excoriating a great mind because of the way its ideas were used by others. Compare this book to THE ESSENTIAL HOLMES, which is both scholarly and readable. It is also written by Judge Posner, an influential modern jurist respected by liberals and conservatives. Do your own reasoning, draw your own conclusions, and be fooled by no one.

Rating:
Summary: Books without conclusions
Review: The author might have explored Holmes's skepticism more, but he oddly leaves many questions open that he could have addressed. What values should drive the law? We are left wondering.

Rating:
Summary: Something Missing!
Review: This book is meant as a polemic against Oliver Wendell Holmes, and in particular, how his skeptical worldview can seen in his decisions.

Here's the thing: I, personally, like Holmes and actually quite admire his skeptical philosophy. So, much of what the author sees as Holmes's faults, I tend to see as his strenghts. The fact that he had no use for ideas of natural law and objective 'right answers;' the fact that he recognized (to my eyes) the reality that social life is an ongoing struggle of interest against interest; his view that rights are not naturally existing, self-evident things, but only have validity through positive law.

There are two reasons I mention the chasm between what the author thought were strikes against Holmes, that I thought were points in Holmes' favor. First, this leads me to conclude that the this book 'preaches to the choir.' It will only convert the converted; if you dislike Holmes and the skeptical turn in law and society, you will like this book. If you admire Holmes and the skeptical turn he helped usher in, you will not be convinced here that you are wrong.

The second reason I bring up the above chasm between mine and the author's take, is taht he really doesn't ARGUE so much as he might do something like simply say: "Holmes was a social darwinist who didn't see a grand purpose to life..." He simply assumes that the reader will addend the sentence with a tacit: "...and those traits are disgusting." There is even a chapter called "Would you have Wanted Holmes for a Friend?" which does exactly this: it points out the traits the author thinks are ugly about Holmes, and ASSUMES without further argument that the reader will concur. "Holmes was detached from having many friendships...[and wouldn't that be just like that sour old man. Hmmph!]" For my part, I wasn't convinced.

The other criticism I have is that the last chapter - which allegedly shows that the skepticism Holmes has ushered in is still with us today - was about as close to a joke as an academic book can produce. The author goes on about teen pregnancy, the rising crime rates, and, yes, even the fact that Americans are runnning deficits. Apparently this all links back to Holmes. To say it bluntly, this chapter seemed so far afield and widely stretched that this nicely written academic book was capped off by a chapter straight out of Pat Robertson's 700 Club. Hmm...

So there you have it: the book is good in that it is well-researched, clearly written and interesting as all get out. It is also one of the few books that really explores Holmes the philosopher as much as Holmes the Justice [see also The Essential Holmes, Posner, Richard (Ed.)] But if you are not a Holmes-hater before you go into this book, you will not be when you come out - and vice versa. For all the author's research and 'expose' of Holmes' personality, philosophy, and methods, he simply ASSUMES what he is supposed to prove: that Holmes is the villian the author says he is, and that these traits are the be-all end-all they are assumed to be.