Read the following excerpt from a scholarly article on legal history:
In her seminal critique of progressive-era jurisprudence, Professor Halloway argues that Justice Cardozo’s deployment of sociological metrics did not constitute a wholesale abandonment of formalist principles, as radical pragmatists often claim. Instead, Halloway suggests, Cardozo treated empirical data merely as a "modest handmaiden" to established legal doctrine—useful for illuminating the boundaries of a rule, but never competent to rewrite it. Yet, when analyzing Cardozo’s later opinions, contemporary scholars routinely exhibit a curious fidelity to his most sweeping rhetorical flourishes, treating them as binding interpretive matrices rather than what they were: strategic concessions to a rapidly modernizing public. By elevating his performative progressivism over his substantive caution, these scholars inadvertently manufacture a radical pioneer out of a jurist who was, at his core, deeply protective of common-law continuity.
Which of the following best captures the contextual connotation of the phrase "curious fidelity" as it is used by the author to describe the actions of contemporary scholars?
- AAn exact and commendable loyalty to the precise wording of Cardozo’s most significant formalist opinions.
- BHalloway’s grudging acknowledgment of the rigorous analytical methods employed by radical pragmatists.
- A paradoxical and ultimately misguided adherence to the superficial aspects of a jurist's writing, which obscures his true judicial philosophy.Answer
- DAn intentionally deceptive manipulation of historical records designed to portray a conservative judge as a progressive pioneer.
- EAn unexpected inconsistency in the contemporary application of sociological data to established legal doctrine.