This is Steve Lubet's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Steve Lubet's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Steve Lubet
Recent Activity
No plans alex I arrived this night; also Alex II, Louis and max tomorrow morning. Just planning to hang out at hotel or nearby unless something comes up Sent from my iPhone On Jun 24, 2016, at 10:00 PM, Typepad wrote: A new comment from Jeff Rice was received on the post Ralph Stanley (1927 - 2016) of the blog The Faculty Lounge. If you would like to post a reply to this comment you can do so at the following URL: Comment: -------- Someone who believed and succeeded at digging into a song deeper than Doc Boggs as he himself was known to say. Now that is no mere accomplishment. A great loss. Commenter name: Jeff Rice Commenter email: IP address: Authentication: None Comment Actions: ---------------- Unpublish this comment: Delete this comment: Mark this comment as spam: Edit this comment: Enjoy! The Typepad Team P.S.: Learn more about replying to comments:
Toggle Commented Jun 25, 2016 on Ralph Stanley (1927 - 2016) at The Faculty Lounge
Law firm partners already line up around the block for the chance to become federal judges; it would be equally easy to convince them to become professors (actually, no convincing would be necessary). Perhaps there are good arguments against hiring prominent practitioners to teach law school, but the difficulty of recruiting is not one of them.
Thanks for the comment. I am going to copy and post it on The Faculty Lounge.
The university's statement was in response to an anonymous letter -- over fifty pages long -- accusing Prof. Goffman of all sorts of misconduct. The letter had been circulated in early May. The university's statement had nothing to do with my reviews of the book.
Let's not be so hasty to accept the claim that "the real possibility of violence was plainly foreseeable." There have been no previous incidents of cartoon-related terrorism in the United States. Until last week, the closest ones had been in Europe, over 5000 miles from Dallas. Geller herself, of course, argues that Muslims are inherently violent, but I trust that everyone on this board rejects -- as I most emphatically do -- that grotesque stereotype. It is odd indeed that Geller's critics end up resting their case by assuming the very stereotype that she promotes -- that Muslims are predictably violent. My own working assumption is that Americans will respond reasonably to provocations, including those that insult religion. The presence of guards was most likely intended for for show -- after all, people wave around guns a lot in Texas, always claiming they are necessary for self-defense.
I mentioned this situation in my earlier post, John. The demand for recusal of Kagan and Ginsburg was made under the federal statute, and I do not see any reason to believe that it would be more vociferous if there were a SCOTUS code of conduct (which would no doubt track the statutory language). In any case, it would be fine with me if the SCOTUS code were to say nothing about disqualification, or perhaps simply cross-referenced the statute. In that regard, nothing would change. The Supreme Court Ethics Act would only require the justices to adopt a code of their own devising -- it says nothing about the content. To answer your other question: the weddings were conducted in Maryland and D.C., where gay marriage is legal. In once case, the ceremony was in the Supreme Court building itself. Needless to say, participation in a legal gay wedding says nothing about a justice's views on whether they are constitutionally required.
Toggle Commented Apr 29, 2015 on Politics and SCOTUS recusals at Legal Ethics Forum