For sure, America prides itself as a nation that lives by “the rule of law.” Law exist everywhere: statutes, ordinances, and judicial decisions. If there's a problem with the “rule of law,” the problem must arise where laws are made. Right?
Where else then? The courts?
For sure, whoever controls the courts will control the interpretation of the law. But, legal hermeneutics originates elsewhere. It starts long before the appointment or election of judges. It begins with lawyers. Then it must be in our law schools. Wrong! Law schools rarely, if ever, educate in legal theory. No, it takes place in think tanks that, for the most part, go unnoticed because they're obscure. Let’s look at two.
Inns of Court
The Inns of Court began in England as a professional association to one of which every English barrister must belong. The English Inns of Court have supervisory and disciplinary functions over their members. Beginning in the late 1970s, U.S. Chief Justice Warren Burger led a movement to create U.S. Inns of Court. Burger, a Republican, was an Eisenhower appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court and an elitist.
Today, U.S. Inns of Court flourish. In many instances U.S. Inns of Court have denigrated into a place where judges and lawyers forge friendships that often reflect an underlying bias against “the rule of law.” It's the place where the young lawyer and would-be judge learns how to "think." There are literally dozens of such U.S. Inns of Court where membership is by invitation only.
The Federalist Society