When I read reactions to the current Supreme Court from academics today, I'm often struck by the different way that the Supreme Court's proper role is spoken of today than when I was in law school from 1994 to 1997. I thought it might be interesting, at least to some readers, to share more about how the Supreme Court was spoken of back then.
I realize this approach is impressionistic. I'm going to discuss the prevailing sentiment as I encountered at one law school, Harvard Law School, at one period, in the mid-1990s. There were surely others who had different experiences, especially at different places. And I look forward to hearing about those experiences! But I thought it still might be interesting to relay the experience I had.
First, some context. When I was in law school, from 1994-97, the public law focus of the Harvard Law faculty was still largely about looking back at the Warren Court. I don't mean that that there was exclusive focus on the period from 1953 to 1969. Rather, I just mean that the main cases and major doctrinal turns in many areas of law were from or were rooted in that period, The Warren Court was still very much a presence.
