Search the Lounge


« Lateral Faculty Move: Carrissa and Andy Hessick From Utah to UNC | Main | The Law School Industry - Veteran Emphasis in US Based Law Schools »

February 13, 2016


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



You've obviously spent a lot of time thinking about Trump, and remembering thinking about Trump, and analyzing the subjects Trumps family study, and thinking about Trump's donations (or lack thereof) and thinking about whether thinking about Trump is actually connected to thinking about the academy.

One wonders: do you ever think about the people running for the nomination of the Democratic party? Does your heart swell with pride, do you think about nothing other than how excellent and noble everything they have done has been, and about how everything about their families is nothing but awe inspiring?

I'm reminded here of what Sanders said the other night in the debate about such thinking ... And, I ask because, frankly, the constant posting here in the FL by profs who want to belittle the Republican candidates but will say nothing about the others betrays, in my view, a decidedly anti-scholarly approach to the problems with the political system today.

I'm frankly surprised you are joining with Lubet in this effort. Next thing you know, you will be running banner ads on this site for the Democratic candidates, no?



Please don't propound a bunch of clichés about how evil the Republicans (and the 50% of the country who support them) are: I've listened to MSNBC enough to know that many believe that they are all racists, etc.

If a person can't look objectively at the political system today, and if a person actually believes that the faults that plague American are because of the faults of Republicans and would be solved if only folks would allow governance by and only by the Democratic political party, then I believe that person has nothing credible to say about political theory and modern governance.

I would regret if you took that approach.

Alfred L. Brophy

Donald Trump may very well be our next president. For that reason alone he's worth some attention. Moreover, I happen to have a personal interest in how his run will affect/is affecting the reputation of the school where I went to college. As to the Democrats, I'm still intrigued by Megyn Kelly's question, "when did you [Trump] become a Republican?" So, apparently, is Ted Cruz.

You ask about whether I think about the Democrats. I blogged about Bernie Sanders' thoughts about reparations last week:

I've written a bunch on Barack Obama and the academy:

Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King


Who will President Trump nominate to the Supreme Court? Discuss along with your reasoning.


So seriously no TFL post on Scalia?



What would they say? That they will dance on his grave?

Scalia was a stalwart defender of the First Amendment, among other things. He was a frequent defender of the rights of the accused and convicted. And on and on.

But, here in the FL, I recall a post that questioned Scalia's religion because of one of his decisions (imagine, an "enlightened one" arguing that religion for a judge should be the guide, not the law and that a judge who does not rule on the basis of his religion is a hypocrite, never even mentioning the religion of other judges: how disgusting and hypocritical is that?)

Here in the FL, posts will cherry pick his position on one or more hot button issues: marriage equality, for example, and brand the man a miscreant and enemy of the people on that basis as well, even though DOMA was signed by ... and "don't ask don't tell" ... and the so-called "personal" opposition to same sex marriage in general were all measures and pronouncements by WHICH PARTY LEADERS???? and WHEN???

Scalia was not perfect, and he wasn't correct on every issue. On that point, every judge must be held to account, not just the one's that one perceives as the enemy. Anyone who does not recognize the talent and the wherewithal and the brilliance of this judge doesn't have the ability to judge fairly. (and the argument, "to what purpose did he put his talent?" rings totally hollow, as one could fill pages with laudable rulings by Scalia and the few issues that cause the hostility of some are almost uniformly issues, whether rightly or wrongly, that he would have left to democratic resolution believing the Constitution to be silent on the issue (e.g., abortion).)

The FL has a big huge blind spot when it comes to politics. But that reflects a juvenile view in the academy in general, which is composed largely of folks who can't grow up and see the big picture when it comes to politics. (Hint: it's not the party that matters ... and ALL politicians do wrong (and sometimes, right).)

Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King

I saw him speak at my law school's annual alumni dinner. He was a hoot. No, I did not agree with him. However, his perspective was very interesting on "originalism." Why should we have a "living, breathing Constitution" when our values and beliefs are floundering? What if nefarious forces, customs and practices took over? Should the Constitution be interpreted to reflect that? Should our Constitution be interpreted to allow the downfall of the country? I got my money's worth that night for $100.00 baked chicken.


Anon - true.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad