He called his approach to judging pragmatic. His critics called it lawless. “I pay very little attention to legal rules, statutes, constitutional provisions,” Judge Posner said. “A case is just a dispute. The first thing you do is ask yourself — forget about the law — what is a sensible resolution of this dispute?”

The next thing, he said, was to see if a recent Supreme Court precedent or some other legal obstacle stood in the way of ruling in favor of that sensible resolution. “And the answer is that’s actually rarely the case,” he said. “When you have a Supreme Court case or something similar, they’re often extremely easy to get around.”

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3732746&forum_id=2#34216937)

That's terrible for for predictability.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3732746&forum_id=2#34218674)

If not flame, that's largely what structured law is for.

It provides the rules for determining what's fair.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3732746&forum_id=2#34218727)

charlatans.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3732746&forum_id=2#34216964)

-----

“I pay very little attention to legal rules, statutes, constitutional provisions,” Judge Posner said. “A case is just a dispute. The first thing you do is ask yourself — forget about the law — what is a sensible resolution of this dispute?”

The next thing, he said, was to see if a recent Supreme Court precedent or some other legal obstacle stood in the way of ruling in favor of that sensible resolution. “And the answer is that’s actually rarely the case,” he said. “When you have a Supreme Court case or something similar, they’re often extremely easy to get around.”

I asked him about his critics, and he said they fell into two camps.

***

He said he had less sympathy for the second camp. “There are others who are just, you know, reactionary beasts,” he said. “They’re reactionary beasts because they want to manipulate the statutes and the Constitution in their own way.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3732746&forum_id=2#34217007)

Available at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/1724

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3732746&forum_id=2#34219134)

like whether a doctor violated the standard of care in a malpractice suit--isn't that all interpretation?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3732746&forum_id=2#34217344)

Maybe.

But even the exercise of equity is (or at least should be) subject to principles of law.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3732746&forum_id=2#34218678)

Why even have a legislature if the judges are just going to do whatever they want, laws and Constitution be damned? If Posner's retirement means we get a new judge who will predictably and faithfully follow the law, then good riddance.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3732746&forum_id=2#34218667)

Ljl at our "laws", what a joke.

I love reactionary dandies like this judge.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3732746&forum_id=2#34218685)

HEHEHEHE

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3732746&forum_id=2#34218791)

OOOOH LOOK AT MY ROBES! I'M LIKE A WIZARD!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3732746&forum_id=2#34220685)

you'd tell your client, "look, they are going to ignore all the facts and law we've been arguing about for years. they're just going to do whatever they want. and there's a good chance they will trash me, trash opposing counsel, or both of us, just for fun."

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3732746&forum_id=2#34220706)

Did anyone ever tell you that you think far too much of your legal writing abilities?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3732746&forum_id=2#34221233)

In addition to playing fast and loose with the facts, Posner sacrifices much of that in service to his goal of telling simple stories for the masses.

That's not a call for jargon or any such nonsense. Posner simply isn't as good a writer as some other notable judges, but Posner doesn't seem to understand that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3732746&forum_id=2#34226681)

I'd rank Easterbrook over Posner on the Seventh Circuit. This includes both opinions and scholarship.

Some DC Cir. judges are good, but boring.

To name some ladies of the bar, I've been favorably impressed by King (5th Cir.) and Kearse (2d Cir.).

Did you ever try to read Posner's N.D. Il. damages opinions (he sought to sit by designation a few times)?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3732746&forum_id=2#34226753)

what a joke

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3732746&forum_id=2#34226972)