Formalism answers legal questions by pedigree, not by what works.

Evidence

Pragmatism remains a powerful antidote to formalism, which is enjoying a resurgence in the Supreme Court. Legal formalism is the idea that legal questions can be answered by inquiry into the relation between concepts and hence without need for more than a superficial examination of their relation to the world of fact. It is, therefore, anti-pragmatic as well as anti-empirical. It asks not, What works?, but instead, What rules and outcomes have a proper pedigree in the form of a chain of logical links to an indisputably authoritative source of law, such as the text of the United States Constitution? Those rules and outcomes are correct and the rest incorrect. Formalism is the domain of the logician, the casuist, the Thomist, the Talmudist. — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 90

Categorization

• DEFINE: Tight, memorable definition of legal formalism and why pragmatism is its antidote.
• XREF: Echoes debates about originalism and textualism in contemporary Supreme Court jurisprudence. — connects to: Different versions differ chiefly in their description of the fundamental test of pedigree a rule must meet to count as a rule of law.; Pragmatic law judges rules by their consequences, not their origins. — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 38; Formalism’s refusal to consider variable factors is what gives rules their force. — Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 9 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Pragmatic law judges rules by their consequences, not their origins. #contradicts (0.90) — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 38
• Formalism’s refusal to consider variable factors is what gives rules their force. #expands (0.80) — Frederick Schauer, Formalism, 9
• Formalism might be seen not as embodying an embarrassingly crude understanding of communication, but as a sensible and highly pragmatic response to institutional limits of generalist judges and… #qualifies (0.70)
• Formalism is a central and distinctive feature of law #expands (0.60) — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 54
• Legal analogy requires a theoretical basis rather than mere perception #responds-to (0.40) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 608