Federalist Society Lawyer's Convention:
This year's Federalist Society lawyer's convention is November 20-22, and the line-up looks interesting as always. In case you're wondering, four five VC bloggers (Eugene, Todd, David B, Jim, and Jonathan) will be speaking. Registration is available here.
The official theme of the Convention is "The People and the Judiciary." I believe they wanted to make the official theme either, "Wow, We Did it Again," or "We Are Seriously Screwed Now, Eh?", but they needed to print the pamphlets before November 4th.
The official theme of the Convention is "The People and the Judiciary." I believe they wanted to make the official theme either, "Wow, We Did it Again," or "We Are Seriously Screwed Now, Eh?", but they needed to print the pamphlets before November 4th.
The subtext being that if Obama gets elected, we should move to Canada?
Given the Fraser Institutes's latest economic freedom rankings, that might not be a bad idea.
If I'm lucky, they are less strict about apostrophe usage in Canada, too.
JHA
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/washington/08detain.html
IMO Supreme Court justices should be chosen by lottery from a list of qualified candidates and should serve a fixed number of years. Judges in lower courts are assigned to cases on a random basis, so why shouldn"t Supreme Court justices also be chosen at random? The present method of selecting justices means that they are often ideological extensions of the president and the Senate. Also, jurists chosen for the Supreme Court are likely to be activists because activists are more likely to decide cases the way that the president and the Senate want the cases to be decided.
Your description of the Federalist Society is inaccurate.
"Telling" in the same way as Obama's failing to state that he is not in fact a terrorist bent on destroying America is "telling."
How the Federalist Society has any role in deficit-creation is a bit beyond me.
No, not telling: Ubu Walker's comment was just incomprehensible, so I didn't respond to it. Please understand that my failure to say I disagree with something written on the Internet is not some kind of implicit endorsement of it.
I for one am glad to hear it, but considering the level of evidence &accusation hereabouts lately, it was perfectly plausible. Isn't that scary?
Maybe you could've posted as "Son of Sarcastro."
Yup, sadly you're right. Sigh.
Why doesn't the Cartoon Network show more Tick reruns? Is it the Federalist Society's fault?
He left out the part about the secret handshakes and unspeakable initiation practises.
Looks like a good convention, but wasn't there a similar topic a few years back? Student Symposium, maybe?
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.