Saturday, March 18, 2017
A new paper that might be of interest to some readers; the abstract:
What are the “obligations” of judges in democracies? An adequate answer requires us to be realistic both about democracies and about law. Realism about democracy demands that we recognize that electoral outcomes are largely, though not entirely, unrelated to concrete policy choices by elected representatives or to the policy preferences of voters, who typically follow their party based on “tribal” loyalties. The latter fact renders irrelevant the classic counter-majoritarian (or counter-democratic) worries about judicial review. Realism about law requires that we recognize that judges, especially on appellate courts, will inevitably have to render moral and political judgments in order to produce authoritative resolutions of disputes, one of the central functions of a legal system in any society. That means it is impossible to discuss the “obligations” of judges without regard to their actual moral and political views, as well as the moral and political ends we believe ought to be achieved.
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Daniel Hemel and David Herzig argue in the New York Times that a Republican plan to replace a tax penalty paid by the uninsured under the Affordable Care Act with a penalty paid directly to insurance companies after a gap in coverage could thwart Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare using budgetary reconciliation procedures.
There probably won't be too much new until the end of the month, though I'll try to put up anything time-sensitive.
March 16, 2017 | Permalink
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
...by promoting random movement in the "overall" US News rank as meaningful, rather than noise. This only came to my attention because their PR office actually sent it to me! They should do some research about whom they send this stuff too! What's especially unfortunate about press releases like this is that it legitimizes the US News metrics, which can only come back to haunt schools when the "overall" nonsense number moves in the opposite direction for no discernible (or, in any case, meaningful) reason.
UPDATE: More superficial reporting, treating random movements as having meaning, or as worthy of note. 95% of movement in the US News "overall" rank is attributable to schools puffing, fudging or lying more than their peers in how they report the data to US News (or the reverse, for schools that drop); US News, recalls, audits none of the self-reported data.
Monday, March 13, 2017
MOVING TO FRONT (ORIGINALLY POSTED FROM OCT. 3 2011, WITH MINOR REVISIONS), SINCE IT IS TIMELY AGAIN
I've occasionally commented in the past about particular schools that clearly had artificially low overall ranks in U.S. News, and readers e-mail me periodically asking about various schools in this regard. Since the overall rank in U.S. News is a meaningless nonsense number, permit me to make one very general comment: it seems to me that all the law schools dumped into what U.S. News calls the "second" tier--indeed, all the law schools ranked ordinally beyond the top 25 or 30 based on irrelevant and trivial differences-- are unfairly ranked and represented. This isn't because all these schools have as good faculties or as successful graduates as schools ranked higher--though many of them, in fact, do--but because the metric which puts them into these lower ranks is a self-reinforcing one, and one that assumes, falsely and perniciously, that the mission of all law schools is the same. Some missions, to be sure, are the same at some generic level: e.g., pretty much all law schools look to train lawyers and produce legal scholarship. U.S. News has no meaningful measure of the latter, so that part of the shared mission isn't even part of the exercise. The only "measures" of the former are the fictional employment statistics that schools self-report and bar exam results. The latter may be only slightly more probative, except that the way U.S. News incorporates them into the ranking penalizes schools in states with relatively easy bar exams. So with respect to the way in which the missions of law schools are the same, U.S. News employs no pertinent measures.
But schools differ quite a bit in how they discharge the two generic missions, namely, producing scholarship and training lawyers. Some schools focus much of their scholasrhip on the needs of the local or state bar. Some schools produce lots of DAs, and not many "big firm" lawyers. Some schools emphasize skills training and state law. Some schools emphasize theory and national and transnational legal issues. Some schools value only interdisciplinary scholarship. And so on. U.S. News conveys no information at all about how well or poorly different schools discharge these functions. But by ordinally ranking some 150 schools based on incompetently done surveys, irrelevant differences and fictional data, and dumping the remainder into a "second tier", U.S. News conveys no actual information, it simply rewards fraud in data reporting and gratuitously insults hard-working legal educators and scholars and their students and graduates.
Thursday, March 9, 2017
First, bail was reduced from $500,000 to $3,000, and now the criminal charges are about to be dropped. I would imagine Professor Parisi will have a good defamation action against the accuser. Do see the comments by the lawyer involved in the property dispute between Parisi and his accuser: this lawyer "believes the criminal allegations were being used to defame and retaliate against Parisi."
UPDATE: It's official, all charges against Parisi have been dropped, but not until he had to spend three weeks in jail! Unbelievable, I imagine Professor Parisi will explore his legal options against the local authorities.
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Daniel Schwarcz (Minnesota) and Colleen Chien (Santa Clara) win American Law Institute Young Scholars Medal (Michael Simkovic)
The press release is here. The award is highly selective. The ALI--publisher of the influential Restatements of Law and co-creator of the Uniform Commercial Code--selects two out of thousands of eligible "young scholars" every two years for work that has the potential to change the law for the better.
Congratulations to Dan and Colleen!
MOVING TO FRONT FROM LAST FRIDAY, IN CASE ANYONE MISSED IT!
The University of Chicago Law School has issued the following statement; prospective authors take note!
It has come to our attention that a website run by the International Agency for Development of Culture, Education and Science (IADCES) is purporting to assist authors with submission of academic work to nearly 20 academic journals in various fields. One of these journals is the University of Chicago Law School’s Journal of Legal Studies. This website is in no way affiliated with the University of Chicago Law School, nor the Journal of Legal Studies, and submitting an article through this website will not in any way get an article submitted to JLS. We believe that is true of the other esteemed academic journals the site lists as well.This website, at http://iadces.com/, provides instructions for submissions by emailing to a gmail address and requires the payment of a fee to have the article reviewed. At least as far as JLS is concerned, this website is a scam. The Journal of Legal Studies does not charge a review fee. Submitting to the email address on this site will not get the piece submitted to JLS. The instructions on how to format your paper have nothing to do with JLS. The fee will be paid to those who run the website, not toJLS.Authors wishing to submit their work to the Journal of Legal Studies should visit the journal's website for instructions. Authors wishing to submit to any of the other journals listed on this website should visit those journals’ official web pages.