First Page
636
Abstract
There are certain fundamental truths. Neither the practicing lawyer nor the best judge has the requisite time to worry about the "why" of a rule of law. And this is true whether the point be one of substantive or adjective law although, as we know, the two are inter-mixed and one.
If the day's work be done, the bar and the judiciary must take the law as they find it, right or wrong, sensible or nonsensical, and do the best they can. Theirs is not to reason why.
I do not mean to deny that now and then a court or a judge will wage and even accomplish a needed reform. Or that from time to time great contributions are made by this bar association committee or that. But these contributions are sporadic, and unorganized, and even when made in many instances are not followed through.
Neither the best judge or the best lawyer has the time to do this kind of thing. Neither is paid for it and the most fundamental truth of all is that we get what we pay for.
The task of steering the law along the right course is a job for"eggheads," the law "perfessors" of America. From my point of view we have been doing our job magnificently. The law reviews are filled with excellent suggestions for this reform or that. But at the present time these pieces float out into the air. No one reads them, let alone acts upon them because no one is paid to do so as a job. No one is to blame for this.
Recommended Citation
Arthur J. Keeffe,
Twenty-Nine Distinct Damnations of the Federal Practice -- And a National Ministry of Justice,
7 Vanderbilt Law Review
636
(1954)
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol7/iss4/12