Juízes da Suprema Corte não ligam para os teóricos

Brent Evan Newton, do Centro Jurídico da Georgetown University, publicou o artigo Law Review Scholarship in the Eyes of the Twenty-First Century Supreme Court Justices: An Empirical Analysis (Drexel Law Review, Vol. 4, p. 399, 2012), em que mostra o relativo descaso dos juízes, principalmente da Suprema Corte dos Estados Unidos, em relação aos trabalhos acadêmicos

"... The current Justices have cited law review articles with less frequency than their predecessors did in the three decades before, which suggests that the current Justices may view current law review scholarship as generally less useful than the members of the Court did a generation ago. Nearly four out of ten of the authors of the cited articles were not full-time members of the legal academy. Considering that writing law review articles is the primary activity of America’s ten thousand-plus full time law professors, the fact that the Justices cite so many articles written by other authors permits the inference that much of the professiorate’s scholarship does not have value or relevance to the Justices (or to the bench and bar generally). The Justices also have cited articles from the full gamut of law reviews in the rankings, including many law reviews that are not deemed “tenure-worthy,” at least from the perspective of the hiring and promotion committees at many “elite” law schools". 

Quer ler o artigo? Aqui