You've probably heard of the "Chicago School" of legal thought. But did you know that there is also a "Maryland perspective" on the law? In today's Baltimore Sun, the editors support the decision of Maryland Senators Mikulski and Cardin to block the judicial nomination of the current U.S. Attorney for Maryland, Rod Rosenstein, to the Fourth Circuit. The editorial offers a few reasons, but the key point seems to be that Mr. Rosenstein lacks a true "Maryland perspective" on federal law:

  Sens. Barbara A. Mikulski and Benjamin L. Cardin notified the White House as recently as September that they would oppose a Rosenstein nomination . . . because the nominee lacks the critical qualification of a long history in Maryland's legal community. A native of Philadelphia, Mr. Rosenstein was just admitted to the Maryland bar in 2002. . . .
  [T]he Marylanders are also fighting, as they have since the beginning of Mr. Bush's term, to retain genuine Maryland representation in a seat on an appeals court regarded as among the most conservative in the nation.
  This also seems a worthy cause. Federal appeals courts are playing an increasingly important role in interpreting federal and constitutional law. The Maryland perspective, in a group mostly dominated by Southern states, should be heard.

  Can any one explain this "Maryland perspective" of the law? Is it genetic? Are there classes you can take to learn it? Books you can read? Can it be acquired quickly, or must it age like a fine wine during decades of residence? Or is it supposed to be a proxy for political views, with the idea being that a true Marylander isn't particularly conservative? (Oh, and yes, I'm fully aware of the history of state-by-state representation on the federal court of appeals. I think it's important, too. I just think it's amusing that the editors would take a historical practice designed to ensure equal treatment and discuss it as if it were some kind of jurisprudential school.)

  Thanks to Howard for the link.