The Limits of Legal Expertise

What kind of experts are legal experts ― and is their authority in danger?

In an interesting article on “The Limits of Expertise” published on Quillette last month, Alex Smith attempts to explain the seemingly generalized loss of faith in expertise, and to offer some solutions. While Mr. Smith doesn’t discuss the law, I think that his analysis is applicable to legal systems. After all, lawyers and judges are ― or are supposed to be ― experts too, and they, like others, are arguably vulnerable to a loss of faith in their expertise. The New Zealand Parliament, indeed, is so concerned about this that it is considering imprisonment and forced abjurations as remedies to what it deems excessive criticism of the judiciary, something I and others are trying to push back against. Seeking to understand the causes of the loss of faith in legal experts seems more likely to be productive response to this issue than criminalization.

Mr. Smith observes ― like many others ― an unpleasant fact: “smart people keep getting it wrong and scepticism about their competence has grown as a result”. “It” might be the path of the economic cycle, the outcome of an election, or even, says Mr. Smith, the next “[a]pocalyptic deadline[] for climate change devastation”. There has been no shortage of misguided forecasting in the last few years. And yet, “[n]obody says, ‘I want someone unqualified to be my president, therefore I also want someone unqualified to be my surgeon.’ Nobody doubts the value of the expertise of an engineer or a pilot.” Skepticism of experts isn’t as pervasive as some might think. How to make sense of this?

Mr. Smith argues that the key to this puzzle is a distinction between “closed systems” and “open” ones. The former ― like “a car engine or a knee joint” ― “are self-contained and are relatively incubated from the chaos of the outside world”. They can be understood, and even controlled. Experts in such systems have no public trust problem. Open systems, by contrast, ― things like “the economy”, “politics”, and “climate” ― “have no walls and are therefore essentially chaotic, with far more variables than any person could ever hope to grasp”. They are impervious to (complete) human understanding, let alone control. And it’s the overconfident experts in open systems, who thought they understood them much better than they really did, and even imagined that they might be able to control them, and have been discomfited, who have spectacularly lost the confidence of the public.

Now, Mr. Smith is not calling for such experts to be put out of work. If anything, he wants there to be more of them ― or at least more viewpoints among them. Individually, such experts need to be humble and remember that there is no chance of their coming into the possession of the whole truth. Collectively, “over time,” they can “mitigate[] the chaos of the open system” by letting individual opinions confront one another and known mistakes to be weeded out, albeit only to be replaced by new ones. But the failure recognize the necessity of, and enable, such confrontation leads straight to “inevitable excesses of hubris, that attract us like moths to a flame” ― and to the inevitable discrediting of experts that results.

There are valuable insights here, the more so because they are not new. Mr. Smith’s distinction between open and closed systems does not exactly track F.A. Hayek’s line between “nomos” and “taxis” ― order spontaneously evolved and order designed ― but it is not entirely dissimilar. Mr. Smith’s message about the need for humility and the impossibility of controlling open systems is as Hayekian as it gets, extrapolating from Hayek’s admonition in The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism that “[t]he curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design”. To be sure, there can be some dispute about where the line between open and closed systems lies, and whether particular areas of knowledge might move from one category to the other as scientific knowledge expands. Mr. Smith suggests that “climate” is an open system ― but even if he is right that our current level of knowledge is such that we cannot fully understand, let alone control it, the same might have have been true of knee joints a couple of centuries ago. In any case, these questions, and some over-generalizations in Mr. Smith’s argument (notably, the claim that all “open” systems are “natural”) do not detract from its essential soundness. But how does the law fit into it?

There are those who think that the law is largely a closed system, which technical and perhaps observational skills allow one to master and so to provide right answers to the questions that arise within it. In a post some years ago I described Hayek and Ronald Dworkin  as “right answer romantics” who are mostly convinced that judges can do this.

More realistically, perhaps, it seems plausible to think of law as a “semi-open”, rather than a completely closed, system. Mr. Smith applies this term to medicine, though without explaining why, or quite what it means. With respect to law, it might refer to the view that, while the law often provides right answers that a sufficiently skilled person can discover, it does not always do so, and leaves some questions to the realm of what Lon Fuller, in “Reason and Fiat in Case Law”, referred to as “fiat” ― “order imposed” when reason and technical skill in interpreting the law provide no adequate guidance. (Fuller was describing judicial fiat, but we can also think of legislative and executive fiat in constitutional law, and perhaps even administrative fiat in statutory interpretation.)

But we might also think of law as an open system ― open, that is, to influences of the social sciences, of morality (not identified, as in Dworkin’s work, as the one true interpretation of the morality expressed in the pre-existing political decisions of the community, but understood as something more personal), perhaps even of more subjective factors. Richard Posner’s “pragmatism” is an unusually forthright expression of this view, but it is also associated with various “legal realist” and “critical legal studies” schools of thought.

Importantly, the Supreme Court of Canada seems increasingly to favour the view of the law as an open system. It insists that there are no judicially discoverable right answers to questions of statutory interpretation or even of constitutional justification of restrictions on rights and freedoms, and that in answering such questions administrators ― regardless of whether they are legally trained ― can be “experts” to whose judgment courts ought to defer. It believes that an undefined balance, rather than the interpretation of the constitutional text, ought to guide the resolution of constitutional disputes. It even claims that acquaintance with “social values” is as if not more important to its own legitimacy as is legal skill.

Now, the view that the law is an open system, exposed to outside influences and impervious to purely technical understanding and control, is not inherently implausible ― no more so than the opposite view that the law is a fully closed system. (I agree with neither of these views ― but I don’t think they are crazy.) The trouble is that the Supreme Court and its (too) numerous fans in the Canadian legal profession and beyond want to have it both ways: they want to treat law as an open system in which the influence of extra-legal, non-technical considerations is inevitable and legitimate, while claiming for the Court the authority to which experts in closed, but not open, systems are entitled. Hence the decisions signed “by the Court” or by improbably large numbers of purported authors that present legally dubious holdings as oracular pronouncements; hence the attempts to delegitimize criticism of the Supreme Court as a danger to the Rule of Law. Such behaviour would be understandable, perhaps even defensible, if the law were entirely a matter of technical skill. But if the law is seen as the product of judgments based not on technical craft, but on policy considerations or morality, they can only proceed from what Mr. Smith rightly describes as hubris.

The position of legal academia is worth considering too. In the good old days, whenever those were, it may have been thought that law professors, like other lawyers, were closed-system experts. Some might still defend this view, but it is not a popular one these days. Rather, law professors like to present themselves not just as the systematizers of and commentators upon legal craft, but as teachers of, and writers on, “history, culture, economics, and political economy” ― as Lisa Kelly and Lisa Kerr wrote in an op-ed in the Globe and Mail earlier this year. While, as I noted in my comment on this op-ed (which is generally relevant to the issues discussed in this post) I am skeptical of the ability of most law professors to be true experts in such a variety of areas, I take the point that academic law, no less (actually, rather more) than adjudicative law, is at least a semi-open, if not a fully open system.

What follows from this? I think it would be wrong to wish to close down the legal system, as it were. I do not think that it is possible, or indeed desirable, to insulate the law entirely from external influences ― whether those of the (social) sciences or even, to some extent at least, those of ideology. (Of course, the permissible scope of outside considerations is a difficult question, as is that of the manner in which they must be integrated with the law’s more technical aspects.) However, whether we view the law as an entirely open system (and, as noted above, I think that this too is a mistake) or as a semi-open one, we cannot insist that legal experts are entitled to the unquestioning deference that experts in closed systems can expect and still receive. As Mr. Smith says, when experts deal with open ― or, I would add, to the extent that they deal with open elements of semi-open ― systems, they ought to be humble about what they can know and what they can achieve, and they ought to make sure that a diversity of views informs their opinions and decisions. Neither condition obtains to anything like a sufficient degree in Canadian law, and in the Canadian legal academy, right now. This, as Mr. Smith suggests, is likely to undermine confidence in expertise ― and for those who care about the Rule of Law, that outcome is not a desirable one at all.

Expecting Too Much?

I have recently responded here, in some detail, to Andrew Coyne’s article claiming, in essence, that some of the Supreme Court’s recent decisions were not mere wrong, but altogether unreasonable, and therefore “activist.” Over the Policy Options blog, I briefly take on Gordon’s Gibson’s attack on the Supreme Court’s alleged activism, which I think is quite gratuitous, and nowhere near as interesting as Mr. Coyne’s. Jamais deux sans trois, they say. So here’s a response to another example of this genre ― an op-ed by Brian Lee Crowley, originally published behind an impenetrable paywall by the Globe, but now conveniently available on the website of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.

Mr. Crowley argues that the Supreme Court’s recent decisions ― he refers to those on “the right to strike, assisted suicide, national securities regulators, Senate reform or who is entitled to sit on the Court” ― are responsible for an “insidious corruption of purpose of the law, the legal profession and the courts.” Behind some (unnecessarily, in my view) combative rhetoric, his argument is quite interesting. It can, I think, be summarized as follows:

1. “One of the most basic purposes of the law” is to generate stable expectations about people’s entitlement and liabilities;
2. The courts’ application of (and, more broadly, the legal profession’s and academia’s thinking about) the Charter, however, has produced a jurisprudence that is unstable and disrupts instead of fostering expectations;
3. More, and worse, it has produced a mindset that does not care for stability, and on the contrary finds virtue in “turning the law into an instrument of social change” ― not just in constitutional cases but across the board, including, for example, in contract law.

The first point is a staple of the Rule of Law discourse, and few lawyers will disagree with it. The following two, however, are overstated, in my opinion. There is something to them but rather less than Mr. Crowley claims.

It is true, for instance, that the Supreme Court’s Charter jurisprudence is not a paragon of stability. The Court’s high-profile decisions on prostitution, labour rights, and assisted suicide were reversals of earlier precedents. That said, some context is in order. The previous decisions on prostitution and assisted suicide dated from the first decade of Charter jurisprudence. Neither the Court itself nor the litigants had yet had the time to work out the way to argue and decide such cases. The relevant legal principles were in their infancy; the factual records which proved crucial to the more recent decisions were not available. Criticizing reversals of such early decisions is not altogether fair. The labour law cases are a different matter, because they reversed much more recent decisions, and there was no evidentiary record to justify their reversal either.

The other cases which Mr. Crowley alludes to, by contrast, simply aren’t reversals of existing precedent. L’Affaire Nadon was a case of first impression. The Senate Reference, as I have argued, for example, here, fits in a consistent pattern of the Supreme Court’s rejection of unilateral constitutional reform, as does Reference re Securities Act, 2011 SCC 66, [2011] 3 SCR 837. The latter case also builds, straightforwardly in my view, on a long line of cases interpreting the federal “trade and commerce” power narrowly. If anything, the way to criticize it is by saying that the Court was wrong to apply these precedents in a changed economy. (I don’t think it was, but that at least would be a strong critique.) Indeed, at first glance, it seems rather strange that Mr. Crowley has listed these decisions as examples of the Supreme Court’s destabilizing legal expectations ― though I think there is an explanation, to which I will shortly come.

Before doing so, let me address Mr. Crowley’s third claim, which is that the Charter has had a broader destabilizing influence. Indeed, it is worth noting that none of the cases I discuss in the previous paragraph was based on the Charter. To the extent that they did in fact generate instability, they would arguably be examples of that influence ― but I don’t think they are very convincing examples. Mr. Crowley’s main concern, though, seems to be with private law. He is, for instance, visibly annoyed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71, which incorporated a general duty of good faith into the Canadian common law of contract.

The difficulty with Mr. Crowley’s argument here is that even the good old common law fields of tort and contract were never quite as immutable and predictable as he makes them out to be. I will give just one example here:

Faced with this abuse of power – by the strong against the weak – by the use of the small print of the conditions – the judges did what they could to put a curb upon it. They still had before them the idol, “freedom of contract.” They still knelt down and worshipped it, but they concealed under their cloaks a secret weapon. They used it to stab the idol in the back. This weapon was called “the true construction of the contract.” They used it with great skill and ingenuity. They used it so as to depart from the natural meaning of the words of the exemption clause and to put upon them a strained and unnatural construction. In case after case, they said that the words were not strong enough to give the big concern exemption from liability; or that in the circumstances the big concern was not entitled to rely on the exemption clause.

Lord Denning, to whose unmistakable pen these words belong (in George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd. v. Finney Lock Seeds Ltd. [1983] Q.B. 284 (C.A.)), is the judge who, for many generations of law students throughout the Commonwealth, arguably was the incarnation of the common law itself. He also drove lawyers mad with his jurisprudential innovations, even prompting a distraught student to write an open letter to the Times asking him to please not change the law any more before her bar exam (an incident which he gleefully recounts here). And, needless to say, he plied his trade in a blissfully, or sadly, Charter-free legal system.

For all that, it is not impossible that the Charter has contributed to a professional mindset that questions the old adage that it is more important for matters to be settled than to be settled right. It may well have made the legal profession into a less conservative and more activist group. But I don’t think that Mr. Crowley has demonstrated this. Such a demonstration would require rigorous comparison and attempts to isolate the influences of a single constitutional document from those of broader, and independent, cultural trends. It would be a difficult task.

Even if it could be accomplished, would Mr. Crowley’s normative claim ― that the use of law to bring about social change, to settle matters “right” even at the risk of upsetting expectations, is a form of “corruption” ― be justified? The claim is reminiscent of F.A. Hayek’s views in Law, Legislation and Liberty, according to which “the only public good with which [a common law judge] can be concerned is the observance of those rules that the individuals can reasonably count on” (vol. 1, Rules and Order, p. 87). Yet Hayek acknowledged that “law arising out of the endeavour to articulate rules of conduct … may not develop in very undesirable  directions” (88). In such cases, he thought that the best remedy was a legislative intervention. Like Mr. Crowley, he was not keen on judicial overturning of precedents, arguing that “[t]he judge is not performing his function if he disappoints reasonable expectations created by earlier decisions,” (88) even if misguided ones.

The problem with this approach is that legislatures aren’t always ready to intervene to correct undesirable developments in the law. What I recently described here as “democratic process failures” ― “persistent inabilit[ies] of that process to produce laws that majorities would agree with and find desirable” ― are a real problem, and possibly an even more pressing one in the realm of private law, which just doesn’t attract the attention of legislators a great deal, than with salient constitutional issues. And so it is not obvious to me that judges should not sometimes intervene and change the law, even at the risk of upsetting established expectations. After all, legislative intervention disrupts expectations as much as judicial intervention does.

And then, there is another problem too, which neither Hayek nor Mr. Crowley really address: expectations are sometimes not as stable as they seem to believe. Quite apart from legal change, social change happens, and settled law can, instead of conforming to, and confirming, social expectations, come into conflict with them. This, I suspect, is what accounts for Mr. Crowley’s inclusion of l’Affaire Nadon, the Senate Reference, and the Securities one in his list of expectation-upsetting cases. They did not, I have argued, upset any reasonable legal expectations. But they may have upset the expectations actually held by a large number of people ― without reference to the law.

It is fine to say that the law must uphold expectations ― it usually must, and it is usually clear enough what must be done in order to achieve this. But not always. A good theory of law must account for the occasional difficulties of this task. It must account, in a realistic way, for the need to correct the mistakes made in this process. And it must account for the possibility of social expectations diverging, sometimes quite quickly, from legally settled ones (which is arguably what happened with assisted suicide). Mr. Crowley’s argument is interesting, but it probably expects too much from the law.

An Online Bill of Rights?

Just a quick note to let my readers here ― those, that is, who avoid my shameless self-promotion on social media ― know about my new post for the CBA National Magazine’s blog. Taking up Yves Faguy’s invitation (at Slaw) to discuss whether “we need a global digital bill of rights.” Drawing on a paper I wrote last year and presented (to mostly perplexed and sceptical audiences) at a couple of conferences, I make a Hayekian argument against this idea. In my view, an attempt to codify the rights that we ought to have online is unlikely to succeed for the foreseeable future. Both the technology and the social, contractual, and legal norms that define the online world change too quickly for any attempt to impose on them a rigid constitutional framework not to produce perverse, innovation-stifling consequences.

To Track or Not to Track?

There was an interesting article in the New York Times this weekend about the brewing fight around “do not track” features of internet browsers (such as Firefox or Internet Explorer) that are meant to tell websites visited by the user who has enabled the features not to collect information about the user’s activity for the purposes of online advertising. Here’s a concrete example that makes sense of the jargon. A friend recently asked me to look at a camera she was considering buying, so I checked it out on Amazon. Thereafter, for days on end, I was being served with ads for this and similar cameras on any number of websites I visited. Amazon had recorded my visit, concluded (wrongly, as it happens) that I was considering buying the camera in question, transmitted the information to advertisers, and their algorithms targeted me for camera ads. I found the experience a bit creepy, and I’m not the only one. Hence the appearance of the “do not track” functionalities: if I had been using a browser with a “do not track feature”, this would presumably not have happened.

Advertisers, of course, are not happy about “do not track.” Tracking our online activities allows them to target very specific ads at us, ads for stuff we have some likelihood of being actually interested in. As the Times explains,

[t]he advent of Do Not Track threatens the barter system wherein consumers allow sites and third-party ad networks to collect information about their online activities in exchange for open access to maps, e-mail, games, music, social networks and whatnot. Marketers have been fighting to preserve this arrangement, saying that collecting consumer data powers effective advertising tailored to a user’s tastes. In turn, according to this argument, those tailored ads enable smaller sites to thrive and provide rich content.

The Times reports that advertisers have been fighting the attempts of an NGO called the W3C (for “World Wide Web Consortium”) to develop standards for “do not track” features. They have also publicly attacked Microsoft for its plans to make “do not track” a default (albeit changeable) setting on the next version of Internet Explorer. And members of the U.S. Senate are getting into the fight as well. Some are questioning the involvement of an agency of the US government, the Federal Trade Commission, with W3C’s efforts, while others seem to side against the advertisers.

The reason I am writing about this is that this may be another example of the development of new rules happening before our eyes, and it gives us another opportunity to reflect on the various mechanisms by which social and legal rules emerge and interact, as well as on the way our normative systems assimilate technological development. (Some of my previous posts on these topics are here, here, and here.)

W3C wants to develop rules―not legally binding rules of course, but a sort of social norm which it hopes will be widely adopted―regulating the use of “do not track” features. But as with any would-be rule-makers, a number of questions arise. The two big ones are ‘what legitimacy does it have?’ and ‘is it competent?’ As the Times reports, some advertisers are, in fact raising the question of W3C’s competence, claiming the matter is “entirely outside their area of expertise.” This is self-serving of course.  W3C asserts that it “bring[s] diverse stake-holders together, under a clear and effective consensus-based process,” but that’s self-serving too, not to mention wishy-washy. And of course a claim can be both self-serving and true.

If not W3C, who should be making rules about “do not track”? Surely not advertisers’ trade groups? What about legislatures? In theory, legislatures possess democratic legitimacy, and also have the resources to find out a great deal about social problems and the best ways to solve them. But in practice, it is not clear that they are really able and, especially, willing to put these resources to good use. Especially on a somewhat technical problem like this, where the interests on one side (that of the advertisers) are concentrated while those on the other (the privacy of consumers) are diffused, legislatures are vulnerable to capture by interest groups. But even quite apart from that problem, technology moves faster than the legislative process, so legislation is likely to come too late, and not to be adapted to the (rapidly evolving) needs of the internet universe. And as for legitimacy, given the global impact of the rules at issue, what is, actually, the legitimacy of the U.S. Congress―or, say, the European Parliament―as a rule-maker?

If legislatures do not act, there are still other possibilities. One is that the courts will somehow get involved. I’m not sure what form lawsuits related to “do not track” might take―what cause of action anyone involved might have against anyone else. Perhaps “do not track” users might sue websites that refuse to comply with their preferences. Perhaps websites will make the use of tracking a condition of visiting them, and sue those who try to avoid it. I’m not sure how that might work, but I am pretty confident that lawyers more creative than I will think of something, and force the courts to step in. But, as Lon Fuller argued, courts aren’t good at managing complex policy problems which concern the interests of multiple parties, not all of them involved in litigation. And as I wrote before, courts might be especially bad at dealing with emerging technologies.

A final possibility is that nobody makes any rules at all, and we just wait until some rules evolve because behaviours converge on them. F.A. Hayek would probably say that this is the way to go, and sometimes it is. As I hope my discussion of the severe limitations of various rule-making fora shows, making rules is a fraught enterprise, which is likely to go badly wrong due to lack of knowledge if not capture by special interests. But sometimes it doesn’t make sense to wait for rules to grow―there are cases where having a rule is much more important than having a good rule (what side of the road to drive on is a classic example). The danger in the case of “do not track” might be an arms race between browser-makers striving to give users the ability to avoid targeted ads, or indeed any ads at all, and advertisers (and content providers) striving to throw them at users.  Pace the president of the Federal Trade Commission, whom the Times quotes as being rather optimistic about this prospect, it might actually be a bad thing, if the “barter system” that sustains the Internet as we know it is be caught in the crossfire.

Once again, I have no answers, only questions. Indeed my knowledge of the internet is too rudimentary for me to have answers. But I think what I know of legal philosophy allows me to ask some important questions.

I apologize, however, for doing it at such length.

Right Answer Romantics

I was re-reading F.A. Hayek’s discussion of the common law in Chapters 4 and 5 of Rules and Order, the first volume of his Law, Legislation and Liberty, and was struck by something I had missed when I first read it four years ago while working on a thesis on common-law constitutionalism. When deciding a case in which the applicable rule of law is not readily supplied by prior judicial decisions  (or by a statute), says Hayek,

The judge may err, he may not succeed in discovering what is required by the rationale of the existing order, or he may be misled by his preference for a particular outcome of the case in hand; but all this does not alter the fact that he has a problem to solve for which in most instances there will be only one right solution and that this is a task in which his will or his emotional response has no place. (119-20)

This is strongly reminiscent, of course, of the (more familiar to most legal philosophers) “right answer thesis” defended by Ronald Dworkin, according to which there is a right answer to every legal question, no matter how difficult, which a proper interpretation of the law should yield.

There are minor differences in the qualifications Hayek and Dworkin make for their right-answer claims: the former concedes, it seems, that there are at least some cases in which it does not hold―though he does not say what these are. The latter is willing to allow that the right answer cannot “be proved right to the satisfaction of everyone” (Law’s Empire, ix, emphasis in the original). Still, the two clearly believe in the essential truth of the one right answer claim.

They also come to it in roughly similar ways, arguing that, while the sources of law recognized by legal positivists (statutes and judicial decisions) do not provide all the answers to all legal questions, more general principles do. They differ somewhat on where these general principles come from and how they are to be found. For Dworkin, one gets at them by interpreting and making sense of prior political decisions of the community, notably the constitution, statutes, and judicial decisions. For Hayek, they are rules of conduct observed unconsciously by members of the community, unbeknownst perhaps to its rulers. But the first place to look for them is in prior judicial decisions (and perhaps also in legislation, though Hayek does not say so, because he recognizes that some legislation corrects aberrant judicial decisions). So these positions are not actually all that different.

In addition to the right answer thesis, Hayek and Dworkin draw another common conclusion from their view that the law’s “seamless web” (to use Dworkin’s expression) or “going order” (to use Hayek’s) is complete and ready to supply a sufficiently skilled and conscientious judge with right answers to all his questions. Both claim that judges do not “make law” in the way legal positivists think they do. Dworkin says that while

judges unquestionably ‘make new law’ every time they decide an important case. They announce a rule or principle or qualification or elaboration … that has never been officially declared before,

this can really be said to be law-making “in a trivial sense.” (6) They do not really make new law―they actually say what the law, properly understood, already was. Hayek makes a greater allowance for the judge’s creative role, but he is adamant that

even when in the performance of [his] function [the judge] creates new rules, he is not a creator of a new order but a servant endeavouring to maintain and improve the functioning of an existing order. (119)

And there, I suspect, is the key to this at first sight unlikely unison between the classical liberal Hayek and the New Dealer Dworkin. They are both trying very hard to legitimize the judges’ work, because they mistrust legislatures. They do so for opposite reasons: Hayek thinks they are over-eager to ride roughshod over the economic liberty and property rights of people; Dworkin, that they are likely not to respect individual rights, the chief of which is equality (not liberty). Their legal utopias are very different: Hayek’s ideal law a morally neutral framework in which each person is free to pursue his own ends, and in which the state’s values have no place at all; Dworkin’s is a legal system thoroughly permeated by a single, coherent set of values. But the upshot is the same. Legislatures are likely to impede the attainment of utopia. Judges, on the contrary, hold the values that can bring it about. (Of course Dworkin and Hayek can’t be both right about this, and perhaps neither of them is, but each thinks that he is.) So both idealized the judges’ law, and join in an almost indistinguishable common law romanticism.