Legal Realism was method-agnostic, accepting lawyers’ intuition and social science alike.
Evidence
Although the empirical analysis of Supreme Court decision-making has become increasingly technical and sophisticated, the empirical claims of the Realists are essentially agnostic as to method. Some of the Realists urged research that employed what were at the time the cutting-edge methods of the social scientists, and would thus likely have been sympathetic to what are now the more sophisticated methodologies. But others believed that the careful perceptions of experienced lawyers would be sufficient to identify the “real” determinants of judicial outcomes and the real divisions or categories of the law. — Frederick Schauer, Thinking Like a Lawyer, 258
Categorization
- DEFINE: Clarifies that Legal Realism’s empirical core was about identifying real determinants, not about any particular research method.
- XREF: connects to: Legal realism failed for lack of methodological tools, not for lack of aims. — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 55
Related
- Legal realism failed for lack of methodological tools, not for lack of aims. (similarity 0.91)
- Realism survives only in a domesticated form, largely ignored in practice. (similarity 0.86)
- American legal literature has always been rigorously practical, not theoretical (similarity 0.78)
Broader Connections
- Legal realism failed for lack of methodological tools, not for lack of aims.
#expands(0.70) — Richard A. Posner, What Has Pragmatism to Offer Law?, 55