Orin Kerr discusses THE SCHOLARSHIP:
| Bipolar stirring center | 04/14/14 | | Spruce karate nursing home | 04/14/14 | | Bipolar stirring center | 04/14/14 | | Red hilarious heaven | 04/14/14 | | Abusive Adulterous Spot | 04/14/14 | | medicated piazza voyeur | 04/14/14 | | Red hilarious heaven | 04/14/14 | | Razzmatazz National Security Agency | 04/14/14 | | clear pervert old irish cottage | 04/14/14 | | Red hilarious heaven | 04/14/14 | | medicated piazza voyeur | 04/14/14 | | Jade lodge tattoo | 04/14/14 | | black sinister senate | 04/14/14 | | medicated piazza voyeur | 04/14/14 | | Red hilarious heaven | 04/14/14 | | fuchsia haunted graveyard | 04/14/14 | | medicated piazza voyeur | 04/14/14 | | Red hilarious heaven | 04/14/14 | | Emerald Dashing School Cafeteria Juggernaut | 04/14/14 | | Red hilarious heaven | 04/14/14 | | fuchsia haunted graveyard | 04/14/14 | | Abnormal Vibrant School Milk | 04/14/14 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: April 14th, 2014 7:23 AM Author: Bipolar stirring center
Legal scholarship in the lean years
April 14, 2014
In the last five years, legal education has witnessed a dramatic reduction in demand. Applications are down, forcing many schools to shrink class size and discount tuition to attract students through “merit” scholarships...
What will the “new normal” mean for legal scholarship? Here are two thoughts about how the current situation for law schools is likely to impact the scholarly side of what law professors do.
(1) First, I expect that scholarship will receive less attention inside the legal academy. In the last two decades, scholarship became an ever-increasing priority for law schools because they had the resources to make it so. Schools could offer generous stipends to faculty to encourage scholarly works. They could hire additional faculty members who didn’t fit a particular curricular need but had great scholarly promise. They could offer lots of money to try to lure top scholars to their faculties. And they could lower teaching loads to free up time for scholarship...
It seems likely that many schools will respond to these pressures my making scholarship a lower priority. The change will occur gradually, I expect...
(2) I would guess that the new environment also will have at least some impact on the substance of legal scholarship. My thoughts are tentative, but here’s a prediction: The lean years will create pressures for scholarship to have more relevance to the bench and bar. The impact will be modest on the whole, as most professors are unlikely to change the basic tenor of their research in light of outside influences. The impact will be felt at some schools more than others. Still, I think the lean years will push legal scholarship as a whole to engage more with the kinds of issues that judges and lawyers see.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/14/legal-scholarship-in-the-lean-years/
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2543178&forum_id=2#25380583) |
Date: April 14th, 2014 7:39 AM Author: Spruce karate nursing home
I used to respect Orin Kerr for his strong command of the 4th amendment, but I've since realized that his blog posts are essentially advertisements to future presidential administrations saying "if you appoint me to a federal court, I will uphold whatever you do"
Everytime Obama does some constitutionally questionable shit, you can bet Orin Kerr will chime in with a post about how it comports with precedent. He was a huge shill for the individual mandate, he's a huge shill for very expansive search and seizure powers, etc. The executive can do no wrong for Dr. Kerr.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2543178&forum_id=2#25380599) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2014 1:02 PM Author: Red hilarious heaven
You are wrong about Kerr. I have no idea what you are talking about. He writes anti Obama shit all the time.
See, e.g., his critique of Obama's FISCA courts:
"If I understand Obama’s new policy on Section 215, he is going to have the Executive Branch ask the judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to begin to limit when the Executive can query the Section 215 database. That is, he will ask the judiciary to take on a new power to limit the Executive, so that the Executive can only query the database when the executive gets a court order signed by the FISC. In his words, “I have directed the Attorney General to work with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court so that during this transition period, the database can be queried only after a judicial finding, or in a true emergency.”
Maybe I’m just old-fashioned, but doesn’t Congress need to be involved in this little enterprise? The FISC is a creation of Congress."
There's hundreds of other examples. Volokh rarely, if ever, goes after anyone like this. He's very careful in his use of language.
Ask yourself this question: Do you really think Kerr is more likely to get a spot on the bench than Volokh? There's no way.
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2543178&forum_id=2#25381499) |
|
Date: April 14th, 2014 1:09 PM Author: Red hilarious heaven
There was an (NYU?) prof Epstein that was criminally charged with having an consensual incestual relationship with his adult daughter. Volokh in typical fashion merely asks questions as to whether incest should be illegal, without taking an actual stance on the position:
http://www.volokh.com/2010/12/12/incest/
1) Should it be illegal, and, if so, exactly why? Is it just because it’s immoral? Because legalizing incest would, by making a future sexual relationship more speakable and legitimate, potentially affect the family relationship even while the child is underage (the view to which I tentatively incline)? Because it involves a heightened risk of birth defects (a view I’m skeptical about, given that we don’t criminalize sex by carriers of genes that make serious hereditary disease much more likely than incest does)?
(2) Given Lawrence v. Texas — and similar pre-Lawrence decisions in several states, applying their state constitutions — what exactly is the basis for outlawing incest? Is it that bans on gay sex are irrational but bans on adult incest are rational, and rationality is all that’s required for regulations of adult sex? Is it that bans on gay sex don’t pass strict scrutiny (or some such demanding test) but bans on adult incest do? Is it that Lawrence rested on the fact that bans on gay sex largely foreclose all personally meaningful sexual relationships for those who are purely homosexual in orientation, whereas incest bans only foreclose a few possible sexual partners? UPDATE: For court cases on this, see here (stepfather-stepdaughter) and here (brother-sister).
(3) If adult incest is indeed criminalized, what should the penalties be (assuming lack of further aggravating circumstances, such as force, strong evidence of grooming for future adult incest during childhood, and so on)? Should the penalty be relatively light, on the theory that only consenting adults were involved (much as the penalty for prostitution is relatively light)? Should it be very grave, on the theory that it’s important to send a firm, unambiguous message that such behavior is wrong, or perhaps on the theory that one party is likely to have seriously harmed the other even though the other consented?
(4) Should all this apply to adult brother-sister incest, or are the arguments chiefly limited to what one sees as the likely special emotional control that parents might have over children?
(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=2543178&forum_id=2#25381532)
|
|
|