Something happened in law schools in the closing decades of the twentieth century. It did not make the headlines. But it shaped the thinking of a generation of lawyers and judges more profoundly than almost any statute or judgment.
Legal realism – the view that judges make choices rather than merely apply rules – merged with a broader current of post-modern thought flowing through the humanities and social sciences. The conclusion that seemed to follow was arresting: legal categories are not neutral; the distinction between legitimate and activist judging is itself a value judgment; and those who invoke legal orthodoxy are defending, whether they know it or not, the interests of the powerful.
