Write an essay of about 750 words comparing the views in that case of one of Justices Keen or Foster to those of one of Justices Cahn, Calmore, Coombs, Greene, Miller, Paul, Stein or Easterbrook.

Lon Fuller wrote the opinions in original version of “The Case of the Speluncean Explorers” to foster discussion of principles of statutory interpretation widely discussed in the mid-20th century. More than forty years later, as articles by Naomi Cahn and others illustrate, legal scholars wanting to illustrate particular views on statutory interpretation still find the “Speluncean Explorers” to be a useful vehicle. The citations for these different papers appear in the syllabus. Write an essay of about 750 words comparing the views in that case of one of Justices Keen or Foster to those of one of Justices Cahn, Calmore, Coombs, Greene, Miller, Paul, Stein or Easterbrook. The essay should consider and provide evidence upon the respective justices’ views in implementing the laws of Newgarth with respect to their views on sources of law; discretion of judges; institutional settlement, that is, the respective roles of courts and judges as compared to other public officials; and respect for law and rule of law. This essay has several purposes: inculcating the habits of close reading and citation; fostering reflection on the proper role of the courts in implementing public policy; giving students early feedback about course expectations; and, of course, evaluating performance in this course. A good essay will demonstrate a clear understanding of the opinions and other readings (especially that of Robert George), have a clear, well-structured argument that anticipates likely counter-arguments, and posses a rich stylistic elegance. Lon Fuller, “The Case of the Speluncean Explorers,” Harvard Law Review 62(4):616-645 (1949) Naomi R. Cahn, et al., The Case of the Speluncean Explorers: Contemporary Proceedings, George Washington Law Review 61:1754-1811 (1993); Frank H. Easterbrook, “The Case of the Speluncean Explorers: Revisited, Harvard Law Review 112:1834-1917 (1999) [Assignment includes only the opinions of Easterbrook and Stupidest Housemaid, at 1913-1917]