I've submitted a chapter in my book, Law as a Connoisseur Judgment, to Law and Society in Boston. I don't know if anyone would be interested in doing anything with it, but I thought the topic would make for an interesting discussion.
Throughout the ages, scholars have described the behavior of judging in various ways: as a self-contained science, as the expression of politics, attitudes or ideology, as "right reason" or autonomous logic, or as policy-making. Yet, judging is none of these things as a BEHAVIOR. Presenting a chapter from his new book, The Flexible Constitution, Dr. Wilson argues that law in the hands of a Supreme Court justice amounts to nothing more than an artisan judgment. It isn't a question of fact, logic or attitude. What the US Constitution ultimately means, therefore, is what its best connoisseurs say. This view is influenced by Ludwig Wittgenstein. Criteria are set forth that show what makes some judgments have superior connoisseurship. The issue is never whether a judge "follows law"; it is only whether he or she is following WELL.