Legal scholars often refer of schools of legal thought, such as the legal formalists, the legal realists, the legal process school, and the like. I have often thought that, as a general matter, there is something to these schools — very real differences in terms of how adherents to these schools thought about the law. At the same time, I am often struck by the nagging sense that many descriptions of these differences are exagerrated. When I go back and actually read the works of the formalists, or the realists, or the legal process school, I often end up with the impression that their work is much more sophisticated and less one-dimensional than many current critiques would suggest. It seems to me that the differences are more differences of degree than differences in kind.
I wonder, do others share that impression? I realize that this is kind of an abstract question, but it’s something I think about from time to time and I thought I would put it out there for comment.