Obamacare and problems of legal scholarship

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

In his recent article on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, David Hyman explores why law professors failed to accurately predict the Supreme Court's decision about the constitutionality of the Act. The article is important in its own right, but it also exposes broader problems in legal scholarship. Too often, legal scholars perform their work backwards: they set out with a conclusion in mind, then do the research to support that predetermined outcome. This distortion of the research process is not intentional. Law professors are rarely trained in how to design a proper research methodology, and the different hats that law professors are forced to wear necessarily generate confusion. But the consequences of this distortion are real: law professors may lose their objectivity; they may lose sight of contradictory positions; and in the case of public predictions - like those on Obamacare - they may lose a good bit of face as well.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1265-1272
Number of pages8
JournalUniversity of Illinois Law Review
Volume2014
Issue number4
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014

Fingerprint

university teacher
Law
act
constitutionality
objectivity
court decision
research process
Supreme Court
methodology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law

Cite this

Obamacare and problems of legal scholarship. / Mazzone, Jason.

In: University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 2014, No. 4, 01.01.2014, p. 1265-1272.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{b86e81d1ea9945c9bdd172162f4b3faa,
title = "Obamacare and problems of legal scholarship",
abstract = "In his recent article on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, David Hyman explores why law professors failed to accurately predict the Supreme Court's decision about the constitutionality of the Act. The article is important in its own right, but it also exposes broader problems in legal scholarship. Too often, legal scholars perform their work backwards: they set out with a conclusion in mind, then do the research to support that predetermined outcome. This distortion of the research process is not intentional. Law professors are rarely trained in how to design a proper research methodology, and the different hats that law professors are forced to wear necessarily generate confusion. But the consequences of this distortion are real: law professors may lose their objectivity; they may lose sight of contradictory positions; and in the case of public predictions - like those on Obamacare - they may lose a good bit of face as well.",
author = "Jason Mazzone",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "2014",
pages = "1265--1272",
journal = "University of Illinois Law Review",
issn = "0276-9948",
publisher = "University of Illinois College of Law",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Obamacare and problems of legal scholarship

AU - Mazzone, Jason

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - In his recent article on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, David Hyman explores why law professors failed to accurately predict the Supreme Court's decision about the constitutionality of the Act. The article is important in its own right, but it also exposes broader problems in legal scholarship. Too often, legal scholars perform their work backwards: they set out with a conclusion in mind, then do the research to support that predetermined outcome. This distortion of the research process is not intentional. Law professors are rarely trained in how to design a proper research methodology, and the different hats that law professors are forced to wear necessarily generate confusion. But the consequences of this distortion are real: law professors may lose their objectivity; they may lose sight of contradictory positions; and in the case of public predictions - like those on Obamacare - they may lose a good bit of face as well.

AB - In his recent article on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, David Hyman explores why law professors failed to accurately predict the Supreme Court's decision about the constitutionality of the Act. The article is important in its own right, but it also exposes broader problems in legal scholarship. Too often, legal scholars perform their work backwards: they set out with a conclusion in mind, then do the research to support that predetermined outcome. This distortion of the research process is not intentional. Law professors are rarely trained in how to design a proper research methodology, and the different hats that law professors are forced to wear necessarily generate confusion. But the consequences of this distortion are real: law professors may lose their objectivity; they may lose sight of contradictory positions; and in the case of public predictions - like those on Obamacare - they may lose a good bit of face as well.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84938280485&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84938280485&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

VL - 2014

SP - 1265

EP - 1272

JO - University of Illinois Law Review

JF - University of Illinois Law Review

SN - 0276-9948

IS - 4

ER -