Search the Lounge

Categories

« Binding Submission at Chapman Law Review | Main | Illinois Law Review Call For Symposium Proposals »

March 26, 2017

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Captain Hurska Carswell, Continuance King

The Republicans are right and wrong on this one. Obamacare, which the Supremes correctly identified as a tax issue or scheme, is the crux of the Republican's opposition to it. It is blatant "redistribution" of money from certain people to others. I agree with the Republicans on that point. It needs to be restructured so that everybody pays, (like Medicare and Social Security) not just a few. Even the $200K for additional taxes is low. My solution is simple: A national sales tax that everybody pays and eliminate the insurance companies. They don't want sick people anyway. The competition aka "free markets" will be cut throat, like it is for cars, phones or attorneys. There will be doctor billboards all over the place. Give folks a voucher and tell them to have at it. Doctors will like it because they don't have to have their medical opinions second guessed or questioned. They can be doctors...

anon

Yep. Lubet is a watchdog that only barks at Republicans.

Now, he is trying to be funny (albeit, by proxy).

But, hate and partisanship are not funny sentiments.

Whether you are mocking or "exposing" or "commenting" Steve, your partisanship is consistent.

You can't see that the structural problems that you help to foment are standing in the way here. You can't see your own contribution to the dysfunction.

I've waited, in vain, for something, anything, that I could judge a neutral post on some political issue.

A while back, you posted about the Supremes attending fundraisers, but cited only the Justices appointed by Republicans (there are plenty of instances you could have chosen to show that this is a problem across the board).

Every political post of yours is based on the premise that there is only evil in Republicans, and only virtue in the Democrats. As such, you are, by definition and per se, a purveyor of falsity, by omission. You are, unlike a lawyer in court, pretending to be something you are not: a scholar. Instead, you are a political operative, using an academic website to purvey your one-sided bile.

To be sure, you are not the only one. Across the country, law schools in particular having been showing, public or private, that they are captured shills for one political party. Be that as it may be, Steve, the fact that others are doing it doesn't make your conduct any more legitimate.

It is, perhaps, impermissible to use this forum as you do.

You please at least one sock puppet, however. I suppose you can relish in that.

And celebrate every triumph of the Party (even when it had nothing to do with it).

Doug Richmond

To "anon": you ought not accuse Prof. Lubet of not being a scholar; read his CV on the Northwestern Law School website. As for his partisanship, nothing requires him to be balanced or neutral on this blog. You clearly are not balanced or neutral on political issues (few people are these days), so you hardly have the right to claim that he must be.

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

Barking at Republicans is easy given their "wide stances" particularly when it involves pelvic issues.

anon

Mr. Richmond

Point taken. I should have said that Lubet is positioning himself as a scholar on this site, and in op eds, etc., to lend credibility to his clearly partisan stances. A good example of this is his recent claim that the moniker "Judge" must not be used by a retired Judge to bolster his credibility as a political commentator. Although Lubet improperly cited an ethics opinion that basically recognized the convention except in cases in court and the advertising of legal services, the analogy here is plain. Lubet is claiming here to be "Professor" Lubet, to support a consistent shilling that would make the hacks on MSNBC blush.

My point is that this is a website called "the Faculty Lounge" but it is functioning as an outlet for Democratic Party partisanship, mainly because of Lubet's fairly incessant posts. As said above, I question the propriety of law schools, especially public schools, being so openly partisan. After all, the truth cannot be understood to be as Manichean as all that. The propriety of this site (I'll leave it to others to determine this) being used as a political advocacy site is definitely a legitimate and open question.

As for the power of Lubet's analysis and insights, I'm sorry, I haven't seen it. I have begged, and I am begging him, to turn his always critical attention to the dysfunctional political system we are suffering with. If as a scholar, particularly a scholar who purports to know something about history, he can come to the conclusion that this dysfunction is attributable only to the Republican party, then, I'm sorry, Mr. Richmond, I will have no choice but to question Lubet's good faith and the quality of his judgments.

For those who spew hate rhetoric EVERY D>>> DAY against their political "enemies" to claim that this is too harsh a stance, all I can say is your hypocrisy renders your complaints risible. See, e.g., the multiple juvenile and puerile posts above, likely by one person.

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

anon at 5:56

Risible; adj. 1. Able or inclined to laugh. 2: arousing laughter. I concur and am guilty.

Juvenile and puerile. Redundant actually. I strenuously object. I was not the one arrested at the Minneapolis airport bathroom, with a 97% rating from some right wing family values group. (Guilty Plea too!) That one he couldn't withdraw.

Doug Richmond

Anon: So what is wrong with scholars taking partisan stances? Both conservative and liberal scholars do so. Some of Prof. Lubet's Northwestern colleagues (e.g., Profs. Lindgren, McGinnis and Presser) have authored blog posts or op-eds or other writings recycled on blogs that are strongly conservative and, at the same time, partisan. They did not conceal their academic affiliations in the process. Are you willing to condemn their conduct with the same vigor you focus on Prof. Lubet? It seems to me that you have to be; if you aren't, then you cannot continue your criticism of Prof. Lubet without effectively admitting a vendetta either against him or against all law school faculty members who don't share your views.

anon

So, first, Deep State is clearly "Captain" ... expect a denial, but, read the posts. This is the same character.

Mr. Richmond

Nothing wrong with scholars taking political stances, in general. Nothing wrong with pointing out if those stances are shallow, poorly conceived and hyper partisan, either.

Also nothing wrong with making my point: that it is unfair, if one is claiming the authority of "a professor of law" to act like a lawyer, and cite only the evidence that supports your side of the "case." This is an inherently misleading form of discourse, especially in the absence of a judge (or moderator), opposing counsel, and a jury.

I have not seen Lindgren, McGinnis and Presser posting here. I have only seen Lubet, tirelessly posting Democratic Party talking points, over and over. I have repeated referred to the "Faculty Lounge" in my comments, and pointed out that it is becoming a bit like MSNBC because, mainly, of Lubet.

Perhaps you prefer the MSNBC/Fox model of political discourse within the confines of an outlet like a cable channel, or a website. If so, you must like MSNBC if you are coming to Lubet's defense.

Personally, I question whether the founding and governing documents relating to this site permit blatant advocacy for a political party, just as I've questioned the propriety of law schools, especially state schools, taking such hateful and extreme positions. But, most importantly, I question the propriety and depth of Lubet's stance.

You essentially ask, "What's the problem?" Well, sir, were I a student in Lubet's course holding views different from his, I would be VERY concerned. His approach is so one sided and again, Manichean, that it would be very obviously stifling if not outright impossible to hold any sort of viewpoint different from his, without fear that he would turn what he clearly views as his superior take down skills on me. See, e.g., ALice Goffman. This sort of sustained attack seems to be in his toolkit. What chance would a student have against that sort of thing? (And this applies to the law schools as well that foster and promote hate speech against their political "enemies" in general. They are acting in very troubling ways, these days.)

Second, a "scholar" should have some depth beyond the "MSNBC" style information gathering. It never ceases to amaze me how quickly some read over a comment or comments and completely miss the point. I'm not condemning "all faculty members who don't share my views." That is a gross overstatement.

Here's what I'm saying, Mr. Richmond:

"As for the power of Lubet's analysis and insights, I'm sorry, I haven't seen it. I have begged, and I am begging him, to turn his always critical attention to the dysfunctional political system we are suffering with. If as a scholar, particularly a scholar who purports to know something about history, he can come to the conclusion that this dysfunction is attributable only to the Republican party, then, I'm sorry, Mr. Richmond, I will have no choice but to question Lubet's good faith and the quality of his judgments."

You can label that a "vendetta" but, really, I don't think so. Do you really think that you are in a position to demand that no one question the fairness, rationality and depth of Lubet's analyses and his campaign on this website to cloak Democratic Party talking points with the patina of his moniker "Professor of Law"?

anon

BTW, I know that this is an inevitable byproduct of anonymity, and I have no way to prove this, but I have praised Lubet for some of his posts on other subjects. I have absolutely no knowledge of him as an individual, but, from what I have read here, I have no doubt that he is a fine human being - all too human like the rest of us.

I want Lubet to start to see the bigger picture, Mr. Richmond. If that angers you, well, so be it.

Doug Richmond

Anon: I am not angry. I don't care if you criticize Prof. Lubet's reasoning or disagree with his political leanings. I am just not bothered by what you consider to be partisanship on a law professor blog in the way you are. Having taught as an adjunct faculty member in four law schools since 1994, I doubt the existence of a connection between a law professor's expression of opinions in published writings (online or in traditional print journals) and students' concerns about expressing their views in the professor's classes. That strikes me as a manufactured reason for concern about Prof. Lubet's commentary. The comparison between students' supposed suppression of their views and Prof. Lubet's criticism of Prof. Goffman's conduct (whether you agree with it or not) isn't valid at all. Scholars criticize one another's work with some regularity. The fact that one scholar criticizes another says nothing about how either interacts with his or her students.

anon

Mr. Richmond

Last response, at least for now.

The relevance of Goffman is not simply that Lubet went after her. It was the WAY he did it. He repeated, over and over, ad nauseam (perhaps this is what you find about my comments), the same set of objections (one can't count the number of times he addressed the hospital claim and the ride). He seemed obsessed with the subject.

You say a student wouldn't even consider this, and would feel quite free to express views that Prof Lubet regularly demonizes on this site. Ok. YOu see it that way, and, perhaps you are right.

Perhaps Prof Lubet keeps his politics out of the classroom: I frankly couldn't believe that, if he doesn't, his students would feel unintimidated. But, then again, perhaps you are completely correct and Prof Lubet is able to foster and accept valid, legitimate and genuine disagreements about political issues (so far, all he has shown on this website is that he believes that there are no legitimate political viewpoints outside the Democratic Party.)

You have your view of it. Since the election, in an atmosphere where emails are bombarding one every day, warning of the imminent danger to everyone, and offering therapy, and workshops and counseling to survive the devastating psychological trauma of the election, it's hard to accept your surmise. The new administration is regularly portrayed in official law school channels, and this is not a guess or surmise, in hyperbolic terms. Perhaps you haven't seen any of this.

I wonder, what student would feel free to express, even to believe, any viewpoint different from the received "wisdom" of folks like Lubet? Mr. Richmond, you don't need to be informed, I'm sure, of the quite real hostility, and even overt actions taken against persons daring to express even a slight agreement with position contrary to the current dogma in the legal academy. Students do have a way of picking up on these signals.

How can this be happening in American universities? Because of people like Lubet. He doesn't care to address the systemic forces that are tearing our nation apart: he portrays it all as just good v. evil.

Coming from Illinois, one needs to be pretty much a staunch ideologue not to see the reality of the current situation. The fact that Lubet remains as one sided as he does speaks volumes.

But, you guess he is very open minded in class.

In any event, as stated repeatedly above, Lubet is using the FL to promote a very narrow, in my view, take on the ills afflicting our political culture. I expect more from a scholar. A scholar doesn't just cite the sources that support his thesis, and a scholar doesn't rely on tabloid "journalism" to support his conclusions.

You speak of scholarship. How would you rate that sort of approach? YOu want to give Lubet credit for being a "scholar" but don't you have any standards to apply before applying that label? Or, is it anything goes in blogs? If the latter, then We've come full circle.

"Every political post of yours is based on the premise that there is only evil in Republicans, and only virtue in the Democrats. As such, you are, by definition and per se, a purveyor of falsity, by omission. You are, unlike a lawyer in court, pretending to be something you are not: a scholar. Instead, you are a political operative, using an academic website to purvey your one-sided bile."

Again, I plead with Steve Lubet: Try to see the bigger picture. Try to open your mind, just a bit, and try to behave as the scholar you can be!

Captain Hurska Carswell, Continuance King

Hi Everybody,

I'm back. Some of you posters above personally attacking Professor Lubet are a bunch of babies. You remind me of the namby pamby civil and family law attorneys who regularly threaten opposing counsels with SANCTIONS instead of fighting like a man.

This Goffman is nothing more than a Trump and everything is politics. If it were not for Lubet, we wouldn't have a platform.

Steve L.

Captain: I don't know what you meant by "Goffman is nothing more than a Trump," but I will assume it was an error on your part.

Prof. Goffman is a sincere scholar who wrote a very overrated and badly documented book. I have pointed out the many errors, implausibilities, and other problems in the book, but that has nothing to do with Prof. Goffman personally. I am quite certain that she has nothing to do with Trump in any possible way, not in reality and not by analogy.

Captain Hurska Carswell, Continuance King

Alternative facts with unsubstantiated claims. I see very little difference between Trump's Twitter outburst accusing President Obama of tapping his wire and Goffman accusing police of trolling hospital emergency rooms and maternity wards for outstanding warrants. You are right. To associate somebody with Trump is the ultimate personal attack.

terry malloy

Don't let it bring you down, it's only castles burning.

anon

In 2015, posted on this site:

"Taking Goffman’s narrative at face value, one would have to conclude that her actions – driving around with an armed man, looking for somebody to kill – constituted conspiracy to commit murder under Pennsylvania law. ... I sent the relevant paragraphs from On the Run to four current or former prosecutors with experience in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois. Their unanimous opinion was that Goffman had committed a felony."

In 2017, posted on this site:

"I have pointed out the many errors, implausibilities, and other problems in the book, but that has nothing to do with Prof. Goffman personally."

Based on these posts, it appears to me that one must rethink any attempt to reason with Lubet. Getting from "A" to "B" above requires, shall we say, a certain kind of "reasoning."

The comments to this entry are closed.

Bloggers Emereti

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad