April 04, 2011
This was funny:
Randy Barnett is a smart guy, but his argument [against the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the health law] strikes most constitutional lawyers as ridiculous. The justices of the Supreme Court will fully bear the responsibility, and I don’t think they mean to revert to understandings of the Commerce Clause from well before the New Deal.
April 01, 2011
So here's a surprising development: as long time readers know, I've been a longstanding critic of the U.S. News ranking charade, even having posted (and re-posted) an open letter to Bob Morse about the now notorious defects with their methodology. Earlier this week, I received the following surprising e-mail from Mr. Morse, which read in pertinent part:
After considerable soul-searching, I've come to the conclusion that we have no good response to the concerns you have raised and that the current rankings really are a fraud on the consumers of legal education. I do apologize to you, and to the countless students who have been misled by this misinformation over the years.
That was, needless to say, a remarkable admission. After further back-and-forth, we have agreed, in principle, that U.S. News will start employing non-manipulable and meaningful measures of faculty and student quality, as well as employment success, similar to those I have used for many years. I hope to be able to announce the details of the new methodology by August at the latest.
March 18, 2011
Ascertained via a robust scientific method. No Bainbridge or Kerr, who are also leading authories in their areas, as well as bloggers? Curious indeed.
UPDATE: Reader Jason Walta may have solved the mystery: "I think the only discernible guiding principle for inclusion on the list was 'Here Is A Person You'll Recognize From the Internet!'" That certainly might explain some of the the inclusions, but doesn't explain the omissions of the folks noted above. I guess we'll just never get to the bottom of this.
March 10, 2011
It's hard to believe they did this, but they did: U.S. News got 105 lawyers throughout the entire United States to rank the law schools they like to recruit from, and then posted it as a "ranking." Yes, 105, that's it. No information on where these 105 went to school, or where they work. Maybe it is just meant as a joke, that could be. Or maybe it's meant to burnish the image, by contrast, of the main fraud on the consumers of legal education for which U.S. News is known, and which is due out next week.
January 21, 2011
January 08, 2011
But a Canadian family court judge has some fun with an ugly situation: see esp. paragraphs 1-2, 9-24, 44-50, 70-93, 117, 137, 158, 210-213 of the opinion, and do read the footnotes, some of which are laugh-out-loud funny. Paragraph 213 of the opinion explains the judge's approach. Somehow I suspect the legal system is not done with this tragically dysfunctional family situation.
January 04, 2011
An old friend who is an attorney in New York writes:
I recently visited your Law School Reports page and I am writing to voice my disagreement with your stance on airport pat downs. For me and many other Americans, they are not an unreasonable search, but an occasional thrill that can really jumpstart a holiday. To know you have the option of being viewed naked under a scanner or fondled by a government employee is something I find easy to accept, and see no words in the Constitution that prohibit such activities.
Now it's true there's a Fourth Amendment in the Constitution, but it doesn't say anything about unreasonable fondling.