Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here is a New York Times story about Michael J. Sandel's popular Justice course at Harvard University. I used Sandel's book Justice: A Reader in a recent Social and Political Philosophy course. His book is based on his course. I won't use the book again. I was put off by (among other things) Sandel's selective editing of the Goodridge case, which held that limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violates the Massachusetts Constitution. It was a 4-3 decision. Two of the four justices in the majority wrote opinions (totaling 14 pages). All three of the justices in dissent wrote opinions (totaling 18 pages). Sandel published only the majority opinion by Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall. This makes it seem as though there is no other side, when obviously there is. In my judgment (I'm a lawyer), Marshall's opinion is a travesty of legal reasoning. (It reminds me of a first-year law student's brief.) The best reasoning is displayed in Justice Martha B. Sosman's three-page dissent. It would have taken up two pages in Sandel's book. Why did he omit it?