Search the Lounge


« Georgia Law Dean Search | Main | Call for Papers: CWRU Law Review Symposium »

May 28, 2014


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

Michael Risch

Interesting, thanks for highlighting. I'm not following your logic on the age thing, though. While I don't necessarily agree with the author, pointing to an old computer science professor to rebut the view that judges are old and don't get technology doesn't convince me.
I think he makes a mistake generalizing, but an example of an older judge might be better evidence of it.


And, what of the juries that often decide these cases? Would a "report" be sufficient? Would a teenage jury do any better?

A good piece appeared in the New Republic recently about the sort of rank stupidity of age bias in the tech field. This was also brilliantly portrayed recently in the HBO comedy "Veep."

Unfortunately, this bias extends as well to legal academia. Take a look at hiring there. Talk to some legal faculty members.

San Francisco lawyer

Have any federal judges confessed to reading Reddit? I would be interested in hearing about this...


Most lawyers and judges are unschooled in STEM, including all on SCOTUS except Breyer. I remember trying to teach Baby Physics and Baby Math to pre-laws and pre-meds. They didn't really want to struggle with real (calculus) physics or any math beyond first-year college offerings, largely, I believe, because the entry requirements for the professional schools look at GPA, and few normal students can pull A's in advanced science or math courses.

When I subsequently studied law at UT Austin, I was not surprised to find that only some 5 out of 140 of my class had any sophistication in math and science--and I'm including architects in that definition.

We Amerikans deserve better: we deserve to be tried by judges and juries that have more science and less religion and superstition, but I'm afraid we'll never get to that point as long as SCOTUS consists of 9 Jews and Roman Catholics who are English, History, Poly Sci and Econ majors. You might think an Econ major would have some sophistication in math, but you would be wrong: an Econ undergrad major need have NO advanced math, including Probability and Statistics.

If I had my way, no person would be fit to sit for the bar who didn't satisfy the requirements for the Patent Bar: Master's degree in STEM or Econ, for starters. As it is now, some 5 state constitutions require belief in god, for chrissake, in order to qualify to practice as judge, advocate or juror. Justice in Amerika is a joke!


Is Don Sterling posting on the FL?


Is "cyberlaw" a category of law? Like torts, contracts and antitrust?

As for the technological ignorance of the Courts, for as long as we've had a patent system, patent holders have whined about stupid judges and poorly written statutes. The only difference with these disputes is that the factual fights tend to be highly technical. The upshot is that these fights are between moneyed parties who have the resources to hire experts competent to advise and opine on the technology.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad