Fightin' Words: Yale Law Review is actually interesting

Law reviews are rarely entertaining, but the most recent issue of the Yale Law Review features an academic feud reminiscent more of professional wrestling than scholarship. Yale Law professor Jed Rubenfeld recently wrote a book about his personal Unified Field Theory of Constitutional Interpretation. Minnesota Law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen reviewed the book in the Yale Law Review, and his review was less-than-favorable. (The title of Paulsen's article is "How To Interpret the Constitution (and How Not To)," and compared Rubenfeld's argument to the humbug Wizard of Oz hiding behind the curtain.) In the same issue of the Yale Law Review, Rubenfeld fired back . Looking down his nose, Rubenfled began his response with "I do not know Michael Stokes Paulsen or his writings." This apparently isn't true, since Rubenfeld and Paulsen debated at a Roe v. Wade conference at Yale in 2003. Nevertheless, this issue of the Yale Law Review is considerably more entertaining than usual. The fun starts here.