That is the title of my most recent contribution to the literature on judicial voting, a literature that goes back to Frank Easterbrook’s excellent paper “Ways of criticizing the court,” which was published in The Harvard Law Review in 1982. Unlike a traditional law review, however, where your average article can easily exceed 30,000 words (60 pp.) and contain over hundreds of obscure footnotes, my pithy scholarly piece was published online in The Journal of Brief Ideas (see below), where submissions may not exceed 200 words! (As an aside, I am also currently writing up a larger piece titled “Bayes versus Weyl” in which I compare and contrast my simple method of Bayesian voting with Glen Weyl’s more complicated “quadratic voting” method. I will blog about both of these voting methods–and explain why Bayesian voting is superior to quadratic voting–next week.)
