Patterico's Pontifications


Easterbrook on the Campaign Finance Decision

Filed under: Court Decisions — Patterico @ 11:44 pm

Stuart Buck has good excerpts from a Frank Easterbrook opinion criticizing the Supreme Court’s recent decision repealing the First Amendment upholding the campaign finance reform law. (Via Pejmanesque.)

Ted Kennedy Staffer’s Memo: Let’s Help Fix a Court Case on Affirmative Action

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 11:06 pm

Let’s see how much play this gets:

As the dust settles in the Judiciary Committee fuss over Republican snooping into Democrats’ memos, several legal scholars said yesterday they were shocked by a memo showing staffers in Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s office plotting to manipulate one of the most significant court cases in recent years.

. . . .

The April 17, 2002, memo describes a call from Elaine Jones of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, who asked that Judge Julia S. Gibbons’ nomination be stalled until after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had decided a landmark court case over the University of Michigan Law School’s race-based admissions program.

“The thinking is that the current 6th Circuit will sustain the affirmative action program, but if a new judge with conservative views is confirmed before the case is decided, that new judge will be able, under 6th Circuit rules, to review the case and vote on it,” a staffer wrote to Mr. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.

. . . .

The Kennedy aide went on to say she was “a little concerned about the propriety” of stalling a nominee based on the outcome of a particular case, but endorsed the strategy anyway.

“Nevertheless we recommend that Gibbons be scheduled for a later hearing: the Michigan case is important, and there is little damage that we can foresee in moving Clifton first,” she wrote after consulting with a second staffer.

And, lo and behold, Gibbons was indeed scheduled for a much later hearing. Only 4 of 101 nominees waited longer.

And in the meantime, the 6th Circuit voted 5-4 to uphold the affirmative action program.

But Republicans are the ones playing politics with the nominations process. Right?

(Via How Appealing.)

Erwin Chemerinsky: Master of the Obvious

Filed under: Morons — Patterico @ 10:35 pm

Erwin Chemerinsky & Co. have an op-ed in this morning’s Los Angeles Dog Trainer arguing that Supreme Court Justices should not get to decide for themselves whether they will recuse themselves from a case. I love this bit of logic:

Apart from the nine Supreme Court justices, no other judge in the United States exercises unreviewable discretion when his or her impartiality is questioned; if a litigant wants a federal district court judge recused, for example, that decision is always made by another judge in the district.

Hmm. Well, you know, apart from the nine Supreme Court Justices, most judges generally never participate in any decisions that are unreviewable. But the Supreme Court Justices do, all the time. Unreviewable discretion is kind of a way of life for these guys. Because, you see, they’re ON THE SUPREME COURT, you MORONS.

UPDATE: Note that the co-author of the piece, Steven Lubet, is one of the Experts quoted in the L.A. Times article from the same day on Scalia’s memorandum denying recusal in the energy documents case.

How To Fisk

Filed under: Abortion,Dog Trainer,Morons — Patterico @ 9:32 pm

If you’re looking for a great example of how to fisk a stupid piece of writing, look no further than version he posted at Oh, That Liberal Media. In particular, I direct your attention to the comments to that post. Some dude there attacked Xrlq’s use of the term “pro-abortion,” and his response is compelling. Here’s a taste:

“Pro-choice,” the term that many pro-abortionists like to flatter themselves with, implies a profound dedication to choice as a cause unto itself. Yet many are anti-choice on guns, schools, taxes, regulations, and just about every issue there is except abortion.

Who lit a fire under this boy?

Harry Shearer Complains About Patterico

Filed under: Blogging Matters — Patterico @ 5:41 pm

Harry Shearer complained on Romenesko today that I stole the term “Dog Trainer” from him:

From HARRY SHEARER: Cute to see that blogger Pattterico calls the LA Times “the dog trainer.” Wonder where he got that? Fact checking hint: that’s been my on-the-air sobriquet for the recovering daily for more than three years (archives: Not the sort of thing worth
quibbling about, but still, accuracy demands…well, accuracy.

Prof. Jay Rosen from the Journalism School at NYU immediately pointed out that I do credit him, in my FUQs (another concept stolen from Shearer).

Seven posts up from Shearer’s, in a post time stamped 3/19/2004 3:58:03 PM, Romenesko printed my further clarification that I credit Shearer in every post in which I use the term:

I also credit Shearer every time I use the term, with a link to this post. I’m not sure if Harry wants to hear this, given my politics, but I am a fan of his — as my comments to that post show. I even tape his radio show most weeks. And I give a link to his home page in the comments.

I’m ripping you off, babe, but I’m open and honest about it. That’s better than you’re used to in Hollywood.

Are we cool, Harry?

UPDATE: I e-mailed Harry about this directly, and he says we’re cool. And, regarding my comment about Hollywood, he says I’m right.

Regular Readers: How Did You Find Out About This Blog?

Filed under: Blogging Matters — Patterico @ 6:01 am

A letter from a regular reader yesterday got me wondering: where do the readers come from? Since I agree with the Commissar that the key goal is regular readership, and not high traffic, I am particularly interested in finding out how I got the readers I have.

So if you read regularly (or semi-regularly), leave me a comment and let me know how you found out about me — if you remember.

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1991 secs.