{"id":1154,"date":"2016-03-25T08:00:36","date_gmt":"2016-03-25T12:00:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/?p=1154"},"modified":"2016-07-28T12:31:42","modified_gmt":"2016-07-28T16:31:42","slug":"turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Turning the Kaleidoscope: Toward a Theory of Interpreting Precedents"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>A full generation of legal scholarship has analyzed methods of interpreting statutory and constitutional provisions. Different works have emphasized text, original intent, original reception, and dynamic \u201cliving\u201d meaning as academics have argued over which methodological systems describe current practice, and which systems are normatively best.<\/p>\n<p>Comparable methodological debates have not occurred with respect to judicial decisions. This Article examines precedents as a third category of legal authorities that &#8212; much like statutes and constitutions &#8212; sometimes present vague answers to important legal questions. This Article\u2019s system of precedential interpretation will challenge unexamined intuitions about \u201creading cases,\u201d with collateral implications for statutory and constitutional interpretation as well.<\/p>\n<p>I consider four categories of historical materials to generate different sorts of precedential meaning: (i) an opinion\u2019s text, indicating a decision\u2019s declared meaning; (ii) adjudicative context, reflecting a precedent\u2019s implied meaning; (iii) reception by contemporary analysts, which depict understood meaning; and (iv) subsequent doctrinal applications, which identify developmental meaning. These categories offer analogies to forms of textualism, originalism, and dynamism that are well known in other legal contexts.<\/p>\n<p>Different methods of precedential interpretation yield different substantive outcomes, as this Article demonstrates through cases from the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries. By way of illustration, this Article will use its interpretive system to destabilize conventional views of Swift v. Tyson, Erie v. Tompkins, and the same-sex marriage case United States v. Windsor. Applying this model to other circumstances could prompt similar revisionism for other influential cases.<\/p>\n<p>As is also true in the context of statutes and constitutions, no system of precedential interpretation can produce simple doctrinal solutions to hard legal problems. A systematic view of interpretive methodology, however, will clarify how interpretive fights proceed, as it explores techniques that lawyers and judges use to manipulate precedents\u2019 immense legal power.<\/p>\n<p><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2574661\" target=\"_blank\">Download the Paper at SSRN<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A full generation of legal scholarship has analyzed methods of interpreting statutory and constitutional provisions. Different works have emphasized text, original intent, original reception, and dynamic \u201cliving\u201d meaning as academics have argued over which methodological systems describe current practice, and which systems are normatively best. Comparable methodological debates have not occurred with respect to judicial decisions. This Article examines precedents as a third category of legal authorities that &#8212; much like statutes and constitutions &#8212; sometimes present vague answers to important legal questions. This Article\u2019s system of precedential interpretation will challenge unexamined intuitions about \u201creading cases,\u201d with collateral implications for statutory and constitutional interpretation as well. I consider four categories of historical materials to generate different sorts of precedential meaning: (i) an opinion\u2019s text, indicating a decision\u2019s declared meaning; (ii) adjudicative context, reflecting a precedent\u2019s implied meaning; (iii) reception by contemporary analysts, which depict understood meaning; and (iv) subsequent doctrinal applications, which identify developmental meaning. These categories offer analogies to forms of textualism, originalism, and dynamism that are well known in other legal contexts. Different &hellip;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":1156,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[367,370,383,380,372,371,363,120,382,378,366,373,381,369,377,376,374,368,379,375,364,384,365],"audience":[],"coauthors":[16],"class_list":["post-1154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-faculty-scholarship","tag-baugh","tag-carolene-products","tag-civil-procedure","tag-common-law","tag-defense-of-marriage-act","tag-doma","tag-erie","tag-faculty-scholarship","tag-federal-courts","tag-federalism","tag-gelpcke","tag-iconic-cases","tag-judicial-role","tag-lawrence","tag-legal-history","tag-precedent","tag-precedential-icons","tag-romer","tag-separation-of-powers","tag-stare-decisis","tag-swift","tag-textualism","tag-windsor"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\r\n<title>Turning the Kaleidoscope: Toward a Theory of Interpreting Precedents - Voices at Temple<\/title>\r\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\r\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\/\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Turning the Kaleidoscope: Toward a Theory of Interpreting Precedents - Voices at Temple\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A full generation of legal scholarship has analyzed methods of interpreting statutory and constitutional provisions. Different works have emphasized text, original intent, original reception, and dynamic \u201cliving\u201d meaning as academics have argued over which methodological systems describe current practice, and which systems are normatively best. Comparable methodological debates have not occurred with respect to judicial decisions. This Article examines precedents as a third category of legal authorities that &#8212; much like statutes and constitutions &#8212; sometimes present vague answers to important legal questions. This Article\u2019s system of precedential interpretation will challenge unexamined intuitions about \u201creading cases,\u201d with collateral implications for statutory and constitutional interpretation as well. I consider four categories of historical materials to generate different sorts of precedential meaning: (i) an opinion\u2019s text, indicating a decision\u2019s declared meaning; (ii) adjudicative context, reflecting a precedent\u2019s implied meaning; (iii) reception by contemporary analysts, which depict understood meaning; and (iv) subsequent doctrinal applications, which identify developmental meaning. These categories offer analogies to forms of textualism, originalism, and dynamism that are well known in other legal contexts. Different &hellip;\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\/\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Voices at Temple\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2016-03-25T12:00:36+00:00\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-28T16:31:42+00:00\" \/>\r\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Kaleidoscope-Green-FacScholarship.png\" \/>\r\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"840\" \/>\r\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"560\" \/>\r\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\r\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Craig Green\" \/>\r\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\r\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Craig Green\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\r\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Beckie Schatschneider\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/505b7875ef49205bf81379b92d47f94e\"},\"headline\":\"Turning the Kaleidoscope: Toward a Theory of Interpreting Precedents\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-03-25T12:00:36+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-28T16:31:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":312,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/cms\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/03\\\/Kaleidoscope-Green-FacScholarship.png\",\"keywords\":[\"Baugh\",\"Carolene Products\",\"civil procedure\",\"common law\",\"Defense of Marriage Act\",\"DOMA\",\"Erie\",\"Faculty Scholarship\",\"federal courts\",\"federalism\",\"Gelpcke\",\"iconic cases\",\"judicial role\",\"Lawrence\",\"legal history\",\"precedent\",\"precedential icons\",\"Romer\",\"separation of powers\",\"stare decisis\",\"Swift\",\"textualism\",\"Windsor\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Faculty Scholarship\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\\\/\",\"name\":\"Turning the Kaleidoscope: Toward a Theory of Interpreting Precedents - Voices at Temple\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/cms\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/03\\\/Kaleidoscope-Green-FacScholarship.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-03-25T12:00:36+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-28T16:31:42+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/505b7875ef49205bf81379b92d47f94e\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/cms\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/03\\\/Kaleidoscope-Green-FacScholarship.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/cms\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2016\\\/03\\\/Kaleidoscope-Green-FacScholarship.png\",\"width\":840,\"height\":560,\"caption\":\"Kaleidoscope\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Turning the Kaleidoscope: Toward a Theory of Interpreting Precedents\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/\",\"name\":\"Voices at Temple\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/505b7875ef49205bf81379b92d47f94e\",\"name\":\"Beckie Schatschneider\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/62b6c5fa1068c42262dab498d74cb3fc60fbba8344047dc13348bd3aacf7b70a?s=96&d=mm&r=g9dc77189f33a293d2c82a50cd24ebb9f\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/62b6c5fa1068c42262dab498d74cb3fc60fbba8344047dc13348bd3aacf7b70a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/62b6c5fa1068c42262dab498d74cb3fc60fbba8344047dc13348bd3aacf7b70a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Beckie Schatschneider\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www2.law.temple.edu\\\/voices\\\/author\\\/rschatsc\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\r\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Turning the Kaleidoscope: Toward a Theory of Interpreting Precedents - Voices at Temple","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Turning the Kaleidoscope: Toward a Theory of Interpreting Precedents - Voices at Temple","og_description":"A full generation of legal scholarship has analyzed methods of interpreting statutory and constitutional provisions. Different works have emphasized text, original intent, original reception, and dynamic \u201cliving\u201d meaning as academics have argued over which methodological systems describe current practice, and which systems are normatively best. Comparable methodological debates have not occurred with respect to judicial decisions. This Article examines precedents as a third category of legal authorities that &#8212; much like statutes and constitutions &#8212; sometimes present vague answers to important legal questions. This Article\u2019s system of precedential interpretation will challenge unexamined intuitions about \u201creading cases,\u201d with collateral implications for statutory and constitutional interpretation as well. I consider four categories of historical materials to generate different sorts of precedential meaning: (i) an opinion\u2019s text, indicating a decision\u2019s declared meaning; (ii) adjudicative context, reflecting a precedent\u2019s implied meaning; (iii) reception by contemporary analysts, which depict understood meaning; and (iv) subsequent doctrinal applications, which identify developmental meaning. These categories offer analogies to forms of textualism, originalism, and dynamism that are well known in other legal contexts. Different &hellip;","og_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\/","og_site_name":"Voices at Temple","article_published_time":"2016-03-25T12:00:36+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-28T16:31:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":840,"height":560,"url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Kaleidoscope-Green-FacScholarship.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Craig Green","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Craig Green","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\/"},"author":{"name":"Beckie Schatschneider","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/#\/schema\/person\/505b7875ef49205bf81379b92d47f94e"},"headline":"Turning the Kaleidoscope: Toward a Theory of Interpreting Precedents","datePublished":"2016-03-25T12:00:36+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-28T16:31:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\/"},"wordCount":312,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Kaleidoscope-Green-FacScholarship.png","keywords":["Baugh","Carolene Products","civil procedure","common law","Defense of Marriage Act","DOMA","Erie","Faculty Scholarship","federal courts","federalism","Gelpcke","iconic cases","judicial role","Lawrence","legal history","precedent","precedential icons","Romer","separation of powers","stare decisis","Swift","textualism","Windsor"],"articleSection":["Faculty Scholarship"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\/","url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\/","name":"Turning the Kaleidoscope: Toward a Theory of Interpreting Precedents - Voices at Temple","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Kaleidoscope-Green-FacScholarship.png","datePublished":"2016-03-25T12:00:36+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-28T16:31:42+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/#\/schema\/person\/505b7875ef49205bf81379b92d47f94e"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Kaleidoscope-Green-FacScholarship.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Kaleidoscope-Green-FacScholarship.png","width":840,"height":560,"caption":"Kaleidoscope"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/turning-kaleidoscope-toward-theory-interpreting-precedents-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Turning the Kaleidoscope: Toward a Theory of Interpreting Precedents"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/","name":"Voices at Temple","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/#\/schema\/person\/505b7875ef49205bf81379b92d47f94e","name":"Beckie Schatschneider","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/62b6c5fa1068c42262dab498d74cb3fc60fbba8344047dc13348bd3aacf7b70a?s=96&d=mm&r=g9dc77189f33a293d2c82a50cd24ebb9f","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/62b6c5fa1068c42262dab498d74cb3fc60fbba8344047dc13348bd3aacf7b70a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/62b6c5fa1068c42262dab498d74cb3fc60fbba8344047dc13348bd3aacf7b70a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Beckie Schatschneider"},"url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/author\/rschatsc\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/cms\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/Kaleidoscope-Green-FacScholarship.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1154","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1154"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1154\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1155,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1154\/revisions\/1155"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1156"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1154"},{"taxonomy":"audience","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/audience?post=1154"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www2.law.temple.edu\/voices\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=1154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}