![[self-portrait]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aph-FWKPAtw/Sb7dbBwgg0I/AAAAAAAAAAU/xefH94KcXQA/S220/LawShark5204a.jpg)
Scrivener's Error| null | |
|---|---|
|
Scrivener's Error |
Law and reality in publishing (seldom the same thing) from the author's side of the slush pile, with occasional forays into military affairs, censorship and the First Amendment, legal theory, and anything else that strikes me as interesting. |
09:30 [GMT-6]
Just a short note this morning—I need to prepare for another stint as a judge this evening (moot court over at the law school), including getting all the errands (etc.) done and arming the claymores on the front door waiting for the trick-or-treaters.I'm not entirely displeased with Alito as a Supreme Court nominee. That is, I fully recognize it could have been much, much worse… such as any of the hyped candidates from the Fourth or Fifth Circuits. What really bothers me, though, is that there hasn't been a scientist on the Court in a looooooooooong time. The closest we've come has been Justice Blackmun, and that's far from satisfactory. Instead, we have something much closer to Paul V trying to determine whether the Earth really did move after condemning to Galileo.1 Some of the greatest errors in administrative law (and, to a lesser extent, in intellectual property law) have come because the Justices, their clerks, and the lawyers arguing before them had not internalized the scientific method… and thereby missed significant policy implications. One disturbing example of this blindness is the State Street Bank opinions; another one is the attempt to measure a scientific explanation's worth through its popularity (whether under Frye or Daubert/Kumho Tire).
It's rather ironic that the Court is so much more comfortable relying on Special Masters in riparian disputes between differing states—a matter clearly within the core competency of a bunch of lawyers who all had Property in law school—than in matters that involve evaluation of scientific evidence (with which the members are, by training and inclination, almost wholly unfamiliar) in a rubric requiring at least passing familiarity with scientific reasoning (ditto). <SARCASM> Or, maybe, it reflects the unwillingness of high-brainpower scientist-lawyers to become prominent enough in partisan political circles to become viable candidates for the bench in the first place. </SARCASM>
Ritual disclaimer: This blog contains legal commentary, but it is only general commentary. It does not constitute legal advice for your situation. It does not create an attorney-client relationship or any other expectation of confidentiality, nor is it an offer of representation.
All material © 2003–09 except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. N.B. This blawg does not use the Creative Commons License, although I'm usually pretty good-natured about permissions for attributed reuse.
I approve of no advertising appearing on or through syndication for anything other than the syndication itself; any such advertising violates the limited reuse license implied by voluntarily including syndication code on this blawg.
Current Poll
None at present.
| Archives |
|---|
Warped Weft
Now live at the new site. I have arranged some of
the more infamous threads that have appeared here
by unravelling them from the blawg tapestry (and hopefully eliminating some
of the sillier typos). Sometimes, the threads have been slightly reordered for clarity.
Links of Interest
Links open in a new window.
These may be of interest; I do not necessarily agree with opinions expressed in them, although the reasoning and writing are almost always first-rate (and represent a standard seldom, if ever, achieved in "mainstream" journalism). I'm picky, and have eclectic tastes, so don't expect a comprehensive listing.
A blawg is sort of like a blog on legal issues, but usually has a lot more links to outside resources (other than other blogs) than does a typical blog. Scrivener's Error is a blawg, not just a blog. You can find other blawgs at < ? law blogs # >.
Optimized for
at 1024x768.
