Please cite to the original publication
The fascination most lawyers find in procedure and process is the result of the opportunity it seems to provide for the evasion of fundamental issues of substance. Thus, even decisions as far-reaching as enunciations of constitutional doctrine by members of the Supreme Court of the United States are often read as attempts by the Court to govern the process by which actions have been taken rather than the substantive results of those actions. Over time however, the significance of such substantive results emerges from the pattern of decisions. And attempts to legitimate those results inevitably involve characterizations both of the judicial process in terms of which they were originally rationalized, and the federal polity on which they were imposed.
Date of Authorship for this Version