Some eighty years ago, then professor and later Judge Jerome Frank purported to expose what he termed "the basic legal myth"--to wit, that judges decide cases by applying legal rules to the facts before them. Frank reputedly went so far as to say that a court’s decision might turn upon what the judge had eaten for breakfast.

Fortunately, other judges have looked beyond the breakfast table for methodologies to promote consistency and coherence in judicial decision-making. Today, I will discuss two successful examples--one fully achieved and the other still in the making. I speak respectively of the influence of economic analysis in remaking antitrust law and that of historical originalism in shaping constitutional law. . . .

Download file Click here to view this document as an Adobe Acrobat PDF.

The Honorable Douglas H. Ginsburg sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.