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.
December 17, 2010
November 22, 2010
November 17, 2010
I thought I'd found the solution a few years ago, by having a blog, in which I speak plainly and honestly (which Deans are forbidden from doing) and in which I expressed political opinions so far out of the mainstream in the reactionary United States as to make all but the most progressive schools nervous. This worked for awhile, though I've started getting the calls and inquiries again. But now Brian Tamanaha (Wash U/St. Louis) has discovered the best way to guarantee one will never be sought after as a Dean: make clear what you would do if you were Dean!
October 20, 2010
July 29, 2010
(Thanks to several different readers for flagging this curiuos back-and-forth. Professor Lindgren appears never to have met a non-story or triviality about which he couldn't blog.)