4/7/15

"…You Can Do Anything With An Amazing Research Librarian" — No Kidding!

Image [cc] Ana C.
It seems that Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. is not a fan of law reviews. Back in 2011, Roberts joked that he found law reviews irrelevant, and found no need to know why there was any influence on 18th century Bulgaria by philosopher Immanuel Kant. In fact he went further and said "I would have to think very hard" in order to recall any recent law review articles he read, or found useful.

Ouch.

Let's admit it, most of us outside the ivy covered walls of Academia rarely rush to the library to grab the latest law review before our peers in order to have a competitive advantage. To be fair, however, law reviews are kind of like archives. Most of the time, you never need anything from the archives, but when that need arises, you sure are glad it is there. Whether law reviews are relevant, or useful, or readable is beside the point here. What is interesting is that Roberts' comment was actually about a real law review article, written by George Washington University Law Professor Orin Kerr. And, as any good writer will attest, always take advantage of the opportunity to turn one piece of writing into two pieces of writing.

Kerr is publishing an answer to Roberts' comments in an upcoming law review article in The Green Bag. I'm actually looking forward to reading that one from this unconventional law review. One side note for The Green Bag…  please update that awful looking website. Just because your law review was created in 1997, doesn't mean your website needs to look like it was created that same year.

Sorry. Got off topic.

Kerr got the idea of writing the response to Roberts when he was named a scholar-in-residence at the Law Library of Congress in 2012. In an interview to the National Law Journal (h/t to Rich Leiter), Kerr mentioned that the staff at the Library of Congress was amazing, stating that "They can find anything." That without the help of the Library research staff, specifically Peter Roudik, the article couldn't have been written. Then came the quote that I'm printing out, framing, and hanging on my office wall:
"The lesson of the article is that you can do anything with an amazing research librarian."
As happy as I am to see this quote, I have to really as Orin Kerr one thing, "you're just now figuring that out??" I bet there are some folks back at George Washington that would love to introduce you to the research librarians at the law library. Helping you find the obscure text from 1859 is something that many of us do on a regular basis. In addition, we can probably get it to you overnight (or within hours), without costing you a fortune. Law Librarians, and Researchers have connections, and those connections have connections. I hope for Kerr's sake that he's located the law library researchers back at GW when he got back from the Library of Congress.

So let this be a lesson to all of the Professors out there writing the next great Law Review Article. Go find the law library and introduce yourself to the research staff. Tell them what you're working on, and make them a part of the team. They probably won't be able to make your article any more appealing to Chief Justice Roberts, but they will definitely help you thoroughly research the topic.

Bookmark and Share

1 comments:

Curious said...

Great article, and I agree with your points on the value of law librarians!

But, but one point of confusion: Kerr's article is dated March 28, 2015 on the SSRN link. At this site (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/03/30/the-influence-of-immanuel-kant-on-evidentiary-approaches-in-eighteenth-century-bulgaria/), on March 30, 2015, he calls it a "new draft paper."

So, I'm confused when you say "What is interesting is that Roberts' comment was actually about a real law review article, written by George Washington University Law Professor Orin Kerr." I don't see how Roberts could be responding to Kerr, when Roberts' comments were made in 2011, and Kerr's article was written in 2015.

It appears to me that Kerr's article is mostly a joke, done as a type of reponse to Roberts, instead of a "real" law review article that prompted Roberts' comments in the first place.

 

© 2014, All Rights Reserved.