Search the Lounge

Categories

« Judge Posner on the Constitution | Main | Boston College Law School Hiring Announcement »

June 27, 2016

Comments

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

anon

Lubet, in his zeal to cover his political bias with a thin patina of legal analysis, once again goes after one of his "republican" targets on grounds that bespeak sloppy reading of the source materials and condemnation stretched to the breaking point.

Thomas wrote, of this recusal: "Pennsylvania has set its own standard by requiring a judge to disqualify if he “served in governmental employment, and in such capacity participated personally and substantially as a lawyer or public official concerning the proceeding” in its Code of Judicial Conduct. See Pa. Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11(A)(6)(b) (West 2016). Officials in Pennsylvania are fully capable of deciding when their judges have “participated personally and substantially” in a manner that would require disqualification without this Court’s intervention."

This quite sound observation has nothing to do with the dream-like diversion by Lubet into a false premise leading to a specious assertion (the "originalist presumption of nearly absolute judicial impartiality must give way to informed psychology ...").

Lubet would do better to analyze bias on the part of other members of the court.

anon

Post: And, perhaps needless to say, Lubet would do better to analyze his own quite obvious biases.

Could any republican feel comfortable allowing Lubet to be his judge on anything? One wonders how students must feel about someone who seems a.) always eager to discredit others and b.) is so obviously motivated by partisan zealotry, ignoring the same flaws he attacks in republicans in those he excuses based on his partisanship (indeed, excusing his favored group from any scrutiny whatsoever).

This is the epitome of the biased individual. One could uses stronger adjectives. How dare he accuse others of bias, when principle seems to mean nothing to Lubet when the same criticism that he applies to republicans applies to those with whom he agrees on usually the most clichéd political talking points.

And, given the shallow nature of the analysis that usually accompanies these attacks, again, how could students who might mention some phrase in class that Lubet deems to be too "republican" feel comfortable that he would not judge them just as unfairly? If I were a student of his familiar with his writing on blogs, I would be terrified to express any honest opinion about some issue that Lubet might consider contrary to Democratic orthodoxy.

The comments to this entry are closed.

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad