Hey, Vince!

Vince, with a hat tip to my source for everything, How Appealing, you should read this op-ed in the  New York Times by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky entitled “Justice for Big Business.”  It begins this way:

THE Supreme Court’s momentous decisions last week on affirmative action, voting rights and same-sex marriage overshadowed a disturbing trend: in the final two weeks of its term, the court ruled in favor of big business and closed the courthouse doors to employees, consumers and small businesses seeking remedy for serious injuries.

Vince, you are in very good company.  I hasten to add that doesn’t mean you’re right!


7 responses

  1. This sums it up, “Justice Sotomayor’s dissent concludes that “the Court has left a seriously injured customer without any remedy despite Congress’ explicit efforts to preserve state common-law liability.”

  2. Chemerinsky doesn’t even pretend to care about the soundness (or not) of legal arguments. He just works from the desired result backward. He can critique the result all he wants, but until he shows why it’s wrong, his predictable criticisms have no persuasive force.

  3. Anonymous,

    Thanks for your observation. Justice Sotomayor is quickly becoming the champion of the underdog.

    All the best.


  4. Dear Ryan,

    This is a serious question. Have you ever heard Chemerinsky lecture, say on reviewing the Supreme Court’s just completed term?

    He does so without notes. He covers an enormous amount of ground. His words tumble out in perfectly formed sentences. I am not easily impressed, but his verbal acuity is nothing short of stunning. Of course, that does not mean that I endorse his substantive views.

    All the best.


  5. You would not guess it based on my comment above, but I am a big fan of Chemerinsky. I have seen him do just the sort of lecture you mentioned. I have also seen him do a comprehensive review lecture for the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, for Con Law (everything you need to know for the bar exam), and a though discussion of Korematsu—all, of course, without notes. He seems to have a mental teleprompter providing him the perfect outline of whatever given lecture he’s delivering that day.

    Stunning indeed.

    Which is why it is such a shame that he didn’t deliver a single substantive critique of any of the decisions that he uses to find a “disquieting theme” uniting these cases.

  6. Ryan,

    Thanks Ryan. I am glad your impression of his lecturing skills is similar to mine. (This stray James Joyce like aside just hurdled into what remains of my mind: Bill Clinton was fantastic on the stump too, but . . . .)

    Yes, the NYT piece pretty much mouthed the party line. Too bad.

    All the best.


%d bloggers like this: