Legal Asininity In Print (or) Why Dealing With Lawyers Leads to Drink

Pace Rick Esenberg, this is proof-positive that the legal profession is clearly removed from the real world.

Abstract:

This Article asks whether a fair application of the Supreme Court's current doctrine of stare decisis to the Supreme Court's current doctrine of stare decisis would counsel in favor of adhering to current doctrine or departing from it. Professor Paulsen argues that the paradoxical answer is that current doctrine of precedent suggests that current doctrine of precedent disserves all of the doctrine's supposed policy justifications. Accordingly, the Court's current doctrine of stare decisis may and should be overruled - according to the Court's current doctrine of stare decisis.

Throw away all those OTHER "lawyer-joke" books...

HT: Feddie