Search the Lounge

Categories

« The Complete Legal Writer | Main | David Yellen Named President Of Marist College »

February 08, 2016

Comments

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

anon

Wow. Once again, Lubet weaves a cheap political attack (based on whatever crass "news" of the moment is being touted by his team as evidence that all Republicans are evil) into his rehearsed, repetitive scheme to pretend his posts are actually about some valid, substantive point or another, and not about his political campaign against Republicans (one is sure that candidates on his "side" never, ever do anything worse that is worth mentioning). He follows a rigorous pattern in these posts of pretending that his point is some deep thought about some worthy topic.

Project much, sir?

not so sly

@ anon:

Huh? The post doesn't say any of the things you read into it. There's no political attack. This post has nothing to do with Democrats vs Republicans.

Lubet's post is a comment about the historical nature of an advocacy technique. It has nothing to do with Republicans, other than the fact that the current instance of this technique took place during the Republican debate.

I'd venture to suggest that you, anon, whoever you are, are a little over-sensitive.

Jack Chin

Interesting analogy. But I thought I heard somewhere that the punchline of the Triangle Shirtwaist trial was that it was a Tammany fix, rather than brilliant lawyering, that dictated the outcome.

anon

Not so sly

Using the FL as a "MSNBC" like outlet is a misuse, IHMO.

This author repeatedly attempts to link the latest Democratic talking points to some legal issue. It is in the repetition by this author, the "robo" like adherence to only one party, the studious avoidance of any concern for objectively and attention to the real issues (rather than the "fluff" of the day), and, most importantly, the divisive, adversary stance that he takes, always, that makes these posts, again IMHO, objectionable.

I don't advocate for any of the candidates here. Why try to turn the FL into a forum for crass, divisive political advocacy based on near religious adherence to a political party (including exculpating one's own icons and demonizing the "others" no matter what).

So many today are calling for a better way. Count me among them. I find Lubet's old fashioned partisanship sort of stale and especially inappropriate in the FL.

not so sly

anon,

Substantively being curious, what other examples of Lubet purportedly writing posts that adhere to this trope can you point to? (I tried to go back find his past posts, but when I click on his name I just get linked to his NW faculty page - I don't know of an easy way to link to past posts of a single blogger here).

Lubet's posts that stick out most in my mind are the Goffman posts. I know he's written other things, but nothing really jumps out to me. I distinctly know that none of his posts, this one included, have ever struck me as politically partisan in any way.

Again, perhaps you're being a little over-sensitive?

anon

not so sly

I will direct you to Lubet's repeated posts here in the FL on Republican candidates. I have no better resource than you to digest them. Regular readers of the FL (and Lubet) will recall these many posts.

These posts uniformly attempt to embarrass and discredit a Republican candidate, by way of a prevalent talking point of the day, and then tie the issue to some legal point, in a transparent and ineffective attempt to cover the naked partisanship behind the effort. This isn't some subtle effort only detectible by some overly sensitive sensor.

Rather, it is, as stated above, good old fashioned "It's us against them, folks" dressed up in an attempt to make the effort acceptable here in the FL, which should be a refuge from the constant hate and partisanship so common in other media, at least IMHO.


John Steele

Steve, the version of the story you recount here is closer to the distorted version that Irving Younger frequently repeated in his "The Ten Commandments of Cross-Examination speech." The actual cross was more subtle. I previously posted about this at my blog.

Cent Rieker

Let's dispel with this fiction that anon doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. He's trying to perpetuate the (mythical) persecution of conservatives in this country.

Let's dispel with this fiction that anon doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's (battery low... battery low)

Seriously, maybe someone more intelligent can explain to me how this interesting story about the Triangle Shirtwaist Trial and Chris Christie's effective utilization of it is the equivalent of a Keith Olbermann Special Comment??

anon

The ability to ignore facts that are contrary to one's sense of "truthiness" was supposed to be a character flaw of Republicans. Not any more, as it seems the title, first six paragraphs of the post above, and the entire point (Rubio has "irreparably damaged his credibility") are not recognized.

I have questioned Lubet's political skills, objectivity and his campaign in the FL on behalf of one side of the political spectrum: ignoring the same or worse faults in those on his "side." Promulgating whatever talking points are playing on MSNBC at the time, dressed up with some analogy to a point of law or practice, does not make this effort any less transparent. This is not the forum, IMHO, for another Lee Atwater.

Reactions to questioning this sort of obvious effort that spew partisanship seem to be exactly what Lubet seeks to inspire. This is further proof of Lubet's intentions. As one recalls, a few of these posts ago, Lubet inadvertently posted an email he sent to one of the commenters on this site.

Lubet removed that email almost immediately, so that "proof" is now unavailable. However, it would be instructive to read that thread, and Lubet's email, in this context, to determine those intentions. This country is becoming more and more polarized, and it is those who cling to the "50% of the people in this country are evil" meme that are ruining it.

To repeat, "[This] is, as stated above, good old fashioned "It's us against them, folks" dressed up in an attempt to make the effort acceptable here in the FL, which should be a refuge from the constant hate and partisanship so common in other media, at least IMHO. Why try to turn the FL into a forum for crass, divisive political advocacy based on near religious adherence to a political party (including exculpating one's own icons and demonizing the "others" no matter what). So many today are calling for a better way. Count me among them. I find Lubet's old fashioned partisanship sort of stale and especially inappropriate in the FL."

cpm

A transcript of the trial is available--in sections or in full-- here: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/triangletrans/

The comments to this entry are closed.

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad