He better not leave

God, what an ugly man.

And by "as soon as possible," you mean 8 hours after Brian Leiter and the WSJ first reported it?

Were you tied up investigating whether Wachtell is a desirable firm?

This is such a double standard. Did the female SA who POURED A DRINK ON HIM and PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED him also have her offer withdrawn?

Why is no one bringing this up???

Are you %$#@% kidding me? What a numbnuts move. I love Chemerinsky and I can't imagine a better choice for dean. He's like a super smart Ewok. Huggable and a great cocktail party conversationalist.

Even though I disagree with Chemerinsky's political bent, he is an amazingly nice and gracious man who would have given that school instant clout and credibility. For UC-Irvine to pull a move like this is mind-boggling.

UCI's explanation of not realizing Chemerinsky's reputation doesn't fly. You don't hire some random con law professor from Duke solely for his legal scholarship; you do it knowing that he's a prominent figure and that hiring him will make a splash. The theory about fearing losing $$ from a significant benefactor is the more likely explanation.

Anyway, do we even need yet another law school in California?

What makes this all the more ridiculous is that it is a public university, state funded. Rich conservative donors should give their money to Pepperdine if they want to control the supposed political bent of the law school.

This does not bode well for anyone who might want to teach at UCI. I wonder how the faculty at UCLA, Boalt, Hastings, and UC Davis Law schools feel about this.

The decision to fire Chemerinsky is even more disgraceful than it is stupid. He is one of the most brilliant constitutional scholars of our generation, regardless of his political views. I'm shocked. Heads should roll because of this.

I don't care how much money UCI gets from its conservative benefactors because of this. Chemerinsky was worth more.

Alpha male conservative who actually accomplished something in the real world pwning a spineless liberal academic? And this is news?

Can we get a new poll option, Lat?

'Justified, but fucking retarded.'

UCI are idiots. Like many well-known constitutional scholars, Chemerinsky (who by the way is absolutely brilliant) is also very well-known specifically for his liberal views (especially in California). What d-bags!

"If he accepted this offer after turning down a deanship from a more established school, they probably dangled a lot of $$$ in front of him."

That, and the fact that Irvine is not in the Southeastern U.S.

I read Chemerinsky's con law book cover to cover and it made me a believer. The guy is brilliant, and accessible.

Regrettably, he was considering Viet Dinh. Dinh is so in love with himself it makes Hillary look gracious. I may not agree with Cherminsky's view points, but, DAMN, he is smart and gracious in person and has no desire to tell anyone their viewpoint is unworthy of consideration or discussion.

something i find interesting is Leiter's hand-wringing over UCI's actions in light of Chemerinsky's political bent? Doesn't Leiter advocate this kind of treatment for conservatives all the time? Does he expect anyone to take him seriously?

they're so full of crap. anyone in the LA/OC area with any legal connection knew very well that chemerinsky was very very involved in LA politics/police issues when he was at USC. as a tax-paying californian and a graduate of the UC system, I am pretty appalled at this. the man is BRILLIANT and would have attracted some great faculty and lent the school some insta-cred. after this debacle, no one is going to want to go there.

5:39 - the rationale is that this country needs more public law schools, and OC down through SD doesn't really have any credible law schools. Just shitty expensive private ones.

everyone hearts chemerinsky. nobody would understand the commerce clause much less the dormant commerce clause if it wasn't for him. the man is a legal god.

I guess I'm out of touch. I had no idea UCI was going to open a law school. The last rumor I heard when I left Southern California was Cal Western was going to be bought and made into UCSD law school. So much for that.

Inland (meaning more than a mile from the beach) Orange County is horrible, soulless place.

The only unusual thing about this is that the academic ditched for political reasons is liberal. Cause we all know there are just tons of law schools out there that would consider hiring an actively conservative dean. (sarcasm . . .)

6:33,

I think the unusual thing is that they hired him (and there's no way they didn't know the bulk of his views before they hired him), and then withdrew the offer. If they hadn't considered him, even if because of a right-wing donor, it wouldn't even be a story.

What goes around comes around. After he told UNC-Chapel Hill he would be its dean and then backed out, now the same thing happens to him. Though a bad move on UCI's part, it is hard to feel sorry for Chemerinsky.

6:33 -- What's Ken Starr doing these days, anyway? Something about a law school in California . . . hmm . . .

People are surprised because it's Southern California, but Orange County is one of the WASP-iest places on the West Coast. I, for one, am not surprised at all.

Maybe UC Irvine conservative funders would approve of John Yoo as their new Dean?

I side with Chemerinsky on this one. I owe him and his treatise for my A+ in Con Law.

Can they do that?

USF fired a newly hired dean for going Larry Craig and soliciting an undercover (boy) cop to do nasty things.

But this is a public university and politics should have nothing to do with it.

Maybe they decided his name was too hard to spell. Yoo would be easier.

The State should do something about their glut of law schools. There are too many bad acredited schools in that state, not to mention the unaccredited rip-off shops.

if chemerinsky can't keep a good job who can? i don't feel so bad about my SA no-offer anymore.

6:29-- Agreed w/r/t soullessness, but UCI is only five miles from the beach.

Why does he want to leave Duke? STAY AT DUKE!

It seems that Chem actually had a signed contract with UCI. The university's BS excuse about why they yanked the job at the last minute is laughable - all the way to the bank, if you know what I mean.

Plus, I'm no constitutional scholar, but something about a public university sacking (albeit, after only one day) a prominent professor for his political speech rings first amendmenty to me. Shoulda paid more attention to Chem's treatise, I guess.

UCI can likely expect to get the shit sued out of it. Congrats on the brilliant decision, d-bags.

Chemerinsky is a money whore. The man was at USC, accepted a position at Duke, rescinded his acceptance after USC put up some more cash, then bailed a year later in the face of an even higher, renewed Duke offer.

Now he was ready to bail to UCI for, presumably, even more cash. Sorry to hear they screwed you, Erwin. How's it feel? I'll give you a hint, ask Duke's students and faculty, or Matt Spitzer at USC, or USC students. Sucks, eh?

I seriously doubt he'll sue, regardless of the merits. He may be disappointed, but what's the point of suing? He can stay at Duke, or go to basically any other school in the country, and they'll continue to look like short-sighted morons. I doubt he's hurting for cash, and it would look kind of petty.

Karma for bailing on UNC Law!

Chemerinsky's Bar-Bri lecture made by heart and completed word-for word and subsection-by-subsection, was the MOST AMAZING thing I have ever witnessed in my life. Seriously.

..."sub-section little '(i)' "...

huggies

Chemer is my idol, my hero, my everything.

It would seem at first that the decision to fire Chemerinsky was at best unwise and at worst, remarkably stupid. I disagree wholeheartedly with everything that Chemerinsky and his ilk stand for and I do not recall having agreed with that lunatic moonbat Leiter on anything in the past, but I do agree with Leiter that Chemerinsky is probably smarter and more accomplished than anyone a brand new, yet unknown law school could ever hope to attract as Dean.

But the fact that this is such a big story should be seen as quite troubling for anyone who does not favor a radical leftist agenda. After all, anyone whose views are as far to the right as Chemerinsky's views are to the left would never stand a chance of being appointed as Dean of a top law school. Since such a conservative would never be considered, the decision whether to fire a conservative in this position would never come up. Let's not forget that the most conservative professors at Harvard, for example (e.g., Manning, Fried, Glendon) are no more, and probably less, conservative than the average Harvard professor is liberal. Same for any top law school.

The school handled this very poorly. But Professor Chemerinsky does have some pretty out-of-the-mainstream views. His take on the unconstitutionality of the Solomon Amendment lost at the Supreme Court 9-0.

And he has a habit of using inflammatory language when it is unnecessary (i.e. discussing Parents Involved and using terms like segregation rather than racial balancing or preferences).

Thus, I can see why those setting up the school thought it might not be wise to make him the face of their new school.

But why the f*** would you make him an offer in the first place then? That's just moronic. Thus, I concur with the above poster requesting a "justified but retarded" as a poll answer.

first!

Why is his hair a different color in each of Lat's pics? Does he dye his hair? If so, he doesn't deserve to be dean.

6:33,

As has already been pointed out, conservative Ken Starr is dean at Pepperdine Law. Conservative John Eastman is dean at Chapman Law. Eastman, incidentally, is quoted by the L.A. Times as calling the Chemerinsky firing "a serious misstep."

In response 6:25 PM, I disagree. The school is UC Irvine (a/k/a the OC). It's so going to enroll the hottest chicks. I'm so taking my 178 LSAT and enrolling tomorrow. All you eggheads work so hard for what? More money and ugly chicks. Money doesn't buy you happiness or a hot chick (at least big firm money doesn't buy you a hot chick).

Life has three great pleasures--good food, good sex (i.e., a hot chick), and the feeling of success. The big firm can only provide good food.

I googled the UNC incident referenced by numerous posters above, having never heard about it before today, and I don't get what he did that was so awful. What am I missing? He turned down a position as the UNC dean and in perhaps somewhat tacky fashion felt it necessary to note that he was doing so because the school doesn't invest as much money in its law school as other schools and because it has slipped significantly in the rankings in past years. Aren't both of those statements true? Based on the comments above, I would have thought that he accepted the position and then pulled out at the last minute or really publicly trashed the school.

For the record, I hate Duke, so I'm not sticking up for him based on a Duke/UNC pissing contest sort of thing.

"Administration's discomfort"-No, more likely the "discomfort" of Donald Bren, a billionaire real estate developer and big Republican donor--who finally inquired about Erwin Chemerinsky's politics.

As goes the Justice Department go other Republican influenced institutions.

Perhaps Roberto Gonzales will now be offered the position?

8:41, it's ALBERTO Gonzoles. Numbnuts.

8:41

Roberto Gonzales runs a taco stand across the street from where the new UCI law school. He's as qualified as whoever they'll be able to get now.

Roberto, Alberto...whatever.

More racism on Abovethelaw. Typical. How are you doing at S&C, 9:03? Everything goin' okay fo ya?

Yikes, Lat. The racism on your site is intense. I'm offended. Not because of the racism, but because the racist jokes aren't at all funny.

8:55, Seabiscuit was a gelding.

Chemerinsky agreed to be interviewed for the UNC deanship, but he never accepted the position. So that is in no way analogous to UCI revoking its offer.

"After all, anyone whose views are as far to the right as Chemerinsky's views are to the left would never stand a chance of being appointed as Dean of a top law school."

Fed Soc, since when is a *brand-new* law school a "top law school"?

And for the list of conservative deans -- I think Saul Levmore at Chicago should at least get a mention. Even if he's not a Bush lackey, he does love himself some rich corporations and economies of scale.

"Controversial"?

Huh???

Right on, 6:41. Chem accepted, then turned down UNC. Now it's come around to bite him. I would otherwise have sympathy, but not this time.

5:36, I think the phrase you are thinking of is "mind-bottling."

Reputation/schmeputation ! They couldn't care less. It's all about the money!

That's how it is in the academic world these days. Whoever has enough money to plaster his/her name on the side of a building....owns the school. The UC system sold out long ago, and the Regents couldn't care less---as long as it's not coming out of their pockets!

That being said, Donald Bren (The Irvine Company) is one of the largest home builders in the county. The faculty will have great housing, and that's reason enough to keep Bren happy.

I hope UCI Law remains relegated to the 4th Tier of Law Schools forever.

Lat, why is Chemerinsky controversial? Only thing I see causing controversy is the idiot who decided his nonexistent school would be better off without a legal star at its head. Having a political bent doesn't make someone controversial.

9:25,

I'm almost certain Seabiscuit was a stallion (I believe he sired over 100 foals). Even if he was a gelding, a gelding still has a penis.

So silly to see people cite Ken Starr as the rebut the argument that this wouldn't come up if Chemerinsky was on the right rather than the left. No one was arguing that there are NO conservative law school deans. Yes, Starr is conservative, but he is hardly radical or an ideologue. He was generally regarded as a fair judge and a respected jurist. Of course, he is commonly known for possibly being overzealous as independent counsel, but that doesn't necessarily reflect on his scholarly temperament. Chemerinsky is WAY further to the left than Starr is to the right.

but what has he actually *said* that's so controversial? I heard him quoted in the socal press all the time on con law/civil rights issues, and it always seemed very sober & conventional. His treatise isn't exactly radical. So what's the deal?

I think it's actually just his penchant for bad puns.

Good point 10:45. The equivalent is probably more Bork than Starr. Bork was outside of the mainstream on the right and Chemerinsky is to the left.

Why any of this matters for a dean is questionable. I guess it could affect the school's commitment to ideological diversity. But hey, when have law schools really cared about that very much.

7:53 -

"After all, anyone whose views are as far to the right as Chemerinsky's views are to the left would never stand a chance of being appointed as Dean of a top law school."

Hm. Regent, Liberty, and Ave Maria don't count, I guess..

Ok, let's put aside the 9th-tier religious moonbat schools for a minute. How about some of 'dem good old Catholic law skules?

11:09: Agreed, the dean at Regent, Liberty or Ave Maria may be as far to the right as Chemerinsky is to the left (or they may not, I don't know much about their views), and this is why I said "top law school."

Pepperdine is a good example of "good old Catholic" school. Pepperdine's Dean, Ken Star, is a conservative. But the conservative equivalent of Chemerinsky would not be a mainstream Republican like Star, but rather the kind of scholar who holds views such as that Lochner was correctly decided, or that states are constitutionally required to ban abortion because the fetus has a constitutional right to life like any other person. Keep in mind that Chemerinsky's views are very, very far left (to the left of even the moonbat wing of the U.S. Supreme Court).

And, it always irks me when liberals use the word "moonbat" to describe what they think is the extreme right. By definition, moonbat refers to the extreme left. I wouldn't characterize Liberty or Ave Maria as "extreme," but if they were, "wingnut" is the term you would want to use.

“.Yikes, Lat. The racism on your site is intense.”

Bullshit.

1. When trying to say or type “Alberto” it is easy enough to slip and type “Roberto”. Yet you all knew who was being referenced. But some pissy little 1L had to point out the error, hence the “whatever” comment.

2. “Roberto” Gonzales REALLY does serve up tacos across the street from where the new UCI law school.

If this is the basis for your indictment of “intense” racism, you will probably pee in your little drawers if you really encounter racism. There are pissy little guys in every group: “Teacher, teacher, Johnny said a bad word”.

Give the adults a break, will you?

Bad move on UCI's part, but let's get things straight, Chemerinsky is not a brilliant scholar. Great treatises, BarBri lectures, and op-eds, but his scholarship is considered a joke within the academy.

Ken Star "mainstream"?

He's a Clinton prosecut-un, tobacy represent-un neo-fascist.

Besides, the truth ain't in him, his feet stink, and he don't love Jesus. Not really.

Fed Soc is right. The views on the right as far from center as Chemer's, and one who uses just as inflammatory language, is Professor Lino Graglia at U. Texas Law. And not only is he not getting deanship offers, he's not even invited to speak at other universities anymore. And, for the record, even he thinks Lochner was wrong, though probably for different reasons than Chemer.

Is Lino Graglia more conservative than John Eastman?

Despite being more liberal than most, Chemerinsky is incredibly fair in his treatment of opposing viewpoints (how else could he be an effective appellate advocate?) and is one of the nicest people I know. It's a shame that UC Irvine couldn't see past his personal political views.

FedSoc: If Liberty University is not extreme, I don't know what is. Falwell once told students to burn the university down if it ever turns liberal, and he took great pride in not offering tenure to professors -- that way, he could fire anyone who taught something "wrong."

I've only been at Duke a month, but everyone knows Chemerinsky's name. Every time I have seen him around the school, he is smiling and waving to us lonely 1Ls. As unfair as "Chemerinskygate" may be, I'm glad he's sticking around.

i guess those morons in the oc haven’t heard of Lexis or Westlaw. how sad is it that they couldn’t figure this out before they hired him? i mean get real. how can they possibly explain this?

oh - students, don't worry about conducting any legal research, you can always "take it back."

i don't care an ounce about his politics - this is a totally lame and unprofessional move. THE OC SUCKS.

Fed Soc:
Pepperdine: "a good old Catholic" school. Are you joking? Check what you post before you spout crap. This place was never affiliated with the Catholic Church; it was founded by Methodists (a Protestant denomination), and has become a hyper conservative Protestant evangelical institution..most Catholics would not even meet their norms.
As for "Catholic" deans who lean on the conservative side, there is always Garvey of Boston College.

Duke1L: There are plenty of people and organizations on the right who qualify as extreme: Ron Paul (for calling for a return to the gold standard), David Duke (for openly anti-semitic views), the Christian Reconstructionist movement (for calling for the death penalty for homosexual conduct), the John Birch Society, Christian Identity, etc. These people/organizations are extreme and probably as far to the right as even the likes of Duncan Kennedy and Brian Leiter (and the most left-wing 10% of professors at top law schools) are to the left. But the Christian Right (with Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, Focus on the Family, the Traditional Values Coalition, etc.) cannot really be considered extreme.

Falwell, specifically, made a few outrageous comments in his life, many of which he apologized for. But Falwell cannot be said to advocate extreme government policies. He said in public that he does not support laws criminalizing homosexuality and even expressed support for laws prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals in housing and employment (a left-wing position). Not to mention that he was good friend with Larry Flynt (a friendship that reflects well on the open-mindedness of both men). Far from your typical right-wing extremist.

The comment about burning down the university was a figure of speech meant to express a very reasonable point, i.e., that almost all law schools are sickneningly liberal and that many institutions funded by conservative donors became bastions of left-liberalism over time (e.g., the Ford Foundation). Falwell's message to his students was simply: don't let this happen. For that matter, how do you think John Harvard and Elihu Yale would feel if they knew whose agenda was being taught at their schools today?

I agree 100% with what appears to be the consensus that this was an idiotic move on the part of UC Irvine's new law school.

But I'm trying to think about what the real fall-out from this bad decision is...

With regard to future prospective law students, who are either current college students or younger, it seems doubtful that they will know about some flap re: who was selected to be the dean. Or, even if they do know, would it really make a big impact on their decision calculus? How many of us cared (or knew) who the dean of our law schools were at the time we were applying for law school or choosing which to attend?

With regard to donations, they will obviously take a big hit in terms of getting money out of left-leaning would-be funders. But it seems that this was already considered by the decisionmakers, who concluded that the risk of alienating conservative money outweighed the risk of alienating liberal money. So presumably they think that they will be able to raise more money with a conservative dean.

I do think that the greatest disadvantage will be in terms of faculty recruitment, and particularly liberal faculty.

Tom, you are correct, this was an embarrassing mistake on my part and not an attempt to be funny. I should have said Notre Dame, not Pepperdine as an example of "good old Catholic" law school.

Fed Soc wrote at 2:08 a.m.:

"But the Christian Right (with Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, Focus on the Family, the Traditional Values Coalition, etc.) cannot really be considered extreme."

Oh. My. God.

There is someone out there who seriously belives that Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, et al. are NOT extreme? Where the hell does this guy live? Backwater Mississippi? The rural parts of South Carolina? Salt Lake City?

This Fed Soc blowhard is the type of idiot who clings to the moronic notion that Erwin is a "radical." Yeah, right. I can really see Chem out there right now leading the flag-burning parades and taking part in the demonstrations at the most recent WTO summit.

And even then, this Fed Soc tool doesn't like the firing and calls it "remarkably stupid." Just shows you how dumb the UC Regents and Chancellor Michael Drake are. Even Fed Soc recognizes their short-sightedness.

From insidehighered (dot) com/news/2007/09/13/uci (9/13):

Brian Leiter wrote that “CHEMERINSKY WAS A FAR MORE PROMINENT SCHOLAR THAN THE UNIVERSITY HAD ANY REASON TO SUPPOSE IT WOULD BE ABLE TO LAND FOR A BRAND NEW LAW SCHOOL,” and that “it’s fair to say that the future does not look bright for the planned UC Irvine law school. WHO WILL TAKE THE JOB NOW GIVEN THIS HISTORY?”
Stephen Bainbridge, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, acknowledged on his blog to being “not a fan of law professor Erwin Chemerinsky’s politics or the implicit left tilt of the plans for the new UC Irvine law school.
“[B]ut I’m also no fan of firing people because of their political views,” Bainbridge wrote. “Chemerinsky’s a very liberal guy, with whose stated views I routinely disagree, but HE’S NOT OUT THERE ON THE RADICAL FRINGE. Moreover, to fire someone because they’re a target of political attacks sets the worst kind of precedent for all of us in legal education — on both sides of the aisle — who dare express political views.”
WHO WILL TAKE THE JOB NOW?
I HOPE ITS JUST SO EMBARRASSINGLY BAD A SECOND CHOICE THAT THE COUNTRY CAN ONCE AGAIN SEE THE FASCISM THE REPUBLICANS WOULD IMPOSE. BETTER TO HAVE SOMEONE WITH MEDIOCRE LEGAL QUALIFICATIONS THAT A “LIBERAL”.

Rumor has it that Chem has retained O.C. attorney Sandy Cohen to handle things.

As a California taxpayer I am outraged. UCI's stated reason to get funding was to train more lawyers to go into public interest and government sector work, since they certainly couldn't argue So. Cal. needs more lawyers. Their decision to fire Chemerinsky will have lasting consequences. In particular, liberal faculty members will not want to accept positions. They have lost all credibility as an academic institution.

If the point is to establish a conservative law school So Cal already has Chapman and Pepperdine. I think California should pull their funding and give it to UC Riverside who UCI competed with for the next UC law school.

Orange County is full of Republicans thick with cash. UC Irvine had a total of 23 Million in contributions, 20 million of which came from the big daddy, Mr. Donald Bren. Bren is worth over $8billion and is Republican. That surely could pull some weight.

everyone hearts chemerinsky. nobody would understand the commerce clause much less the dormant commerce clause if it wasn't for him. the man is a legal god.

Please, get your head out of his ass- The commerce clause isnt understandable but for his explanation? ridiculous.

All I have to say on the matter is this: I don't care about his views. By far the longest, most boring lecture of any barbri lecture. The man could put me to sleep right after I woke up. Certainly not qualified to run a law school.

Chemerinsky was one of the few BarBri lecturers who didn't make me want to shoot them by the end of the course. That and the fact that he did the whole thing without notes.

Although, when I took it in NYC, they really could have produced a more recent and better-quality videotape.

9:31 - I had the exact opposite reaction to his BarBri lecture; I wanted to claw my eyes out at the end of it. He came accross as having the personality of a cracker and his lecture was about as engaging as paint drying on the side of a can.

The man is overhyped, but it was still a bad move to cut him as dean of UCI.

4:15 and 5:50 AM -- your posts speak for themselves. Clearly you are both a few fries short...

9:02 AM -- "They have lost all credibility as an academic institution." Meh. We're overstating things, aren't we? I agree, this was a stupid move. But UCI Law doesn't have *any* credibility yet, and UCI as a university isn't exactly a national educational powerhouse. Other universities have weathered much more significant crises/scandals/missteps and come out okay. (I seem to remember Harvard has had some faculty issues...) Granted, UCI doesn't have the margin for error that Harvard has, so a misstep like the Chem thing is a pretty glaring way to inaugurate a law school. But this isn't exactly the first time politics/money has impacted a university's faculty/deanship decisions.

Chemerinsky is great at understanding and summarizing con law, but he is not considered an elite scholar (i.e. one who breaks new ground) in that field like Akhil Amar or Randy Barnett.

10:02, Doesn't matter at UCI ... like any TTT, they're just going to teach to the bar anyway. They might as well have selected the man best in the world at doing that.

Borked, Miered, and . . . Chemerinskied. Doesn't quite roll of the tongue!

Oh fuck Erwin. When he turned down UNC, he told the Duke students it was at least largely because he loved Duke students sooooo much. Then a year or so later he tries to fuck them in the ass.

Whatever Duke is spending for him, it's too much now, considering he'll be out the door as soon as another $$$ offer comes.

He should really get some more fashionable eyewear- He looks like a big geek with those glasses- the lenses cover half his face.

This is what happens when people harbor partisan outrage. This is similar to the Lawrence Summers boot, just a different political agenda being executed.

Why are we so shocked that Chemerinsky followed the $$$?

Isn't this the same site where Atlanta associates bitch that they're not making NY salaries, people say they'll leave NY if firms don't raise to $190k, and a group of nitwits harp about clerkship bonuses?

Chemerinsky is just like you and me. Just uglier (maybe).

The real reason was his tasteless jokes (some of which he tells during bar review).

Dear September 13, 2007 10:02 AM:

Please tell me the academic qualifications you possess in order to judge Chemerinsky no elite scholar?

Because Douglas W. Kmiec (Prof. at Pepperdine LS) says in his LA Times OP Ed peice of this morning: "Erwin Chemerinsky is one of the finest constitutional scholars in the country."

Did you graduate in the top 10 of your class at Yale or have you written even a single law review article on Con Law?

Or are you a twerp 2L who would not know an "elite scholar" If he came out of the toilet and bit you on the ass.

11:09 -

Doug Kmiec is a TTT teaching at a TTT. Nice name drop.

But even if I concede his point that Chemerinsky is "one of the finest" con law scholars in the US, that's not mutually exclusive with my statement that he isn't an elite scholar, particularly as I defined it (breaking new ground).

Like I said, Chemerinsky is smart and great at summarizing. He's brilliant at understanding and explaining what the law is, but he's less than stellar when arguing his normative positions. He's more Arthur Miller and less Alexander Bickel. One of the finest, sure. But not elite.

Anyone uses the "TTT" card to lead off an argument, and then tries to wax analytical is full of it. If you don't like Chemerinsky, that's fine. I actually agree with you that Chemerinsky isn't a fountain of novel ideas, but don't dismiss people who praise him just because they teach at schools you don't hear about every day.

10:02, is that you, Randy?

But you did not anaswer my question. and it was not a "name drop". It is an op ed peice in today's LA Times.

You call Pepperdine a "toilet"?

I again ask you YOUR academic qualifications?

Fed Soc:

You likely have no use for advice from me, but I'll give it to you anyway because--who knows--it might give you something to think about.

Trying to imagine your worldview subjectively, I can understand why you could be frustrated that conservative viewpoints are underrepresented in legal academia. Following from that, I can understand why you would want to argue for greater conservative representation in law schools. But if such is your goal, you do little to achieve it with your exaggerated arguments and embittered name-calling.

For starters, you need to realize that many, many so-called liberals actually are open to viewpoints besides our own. However, like anyone would, we expect the expression of those viewpoints to be respectful and evenhanded before we will listen. Have you ever paid real attention to invective-laden arguments from the left? Of course not. Nor should you have. Why mirror the worst tendencies of your opponents? And if you do, why expect a different response than what you would have?

To be specific: Chemerinsky is not the left's equivalent of Christian Reconstructionists. When you overstate your point like that, why should anyone listen? If you must lash out from frustration at the left, try not to indulge in cliche nonsense like "moonbats." By doing so, you just lump yourself in with Freeper creeps and message board trolls, and that's not good for your message, either. I have yet to read anything written by anyone with an affinity for calling liberals "moonbats" that was worth the time it took to read. Name-calling in general just signals an unwillingness to think and the kind of rank factionalism that turns people off to your arguments. How many posts have you read about "wingnuts" that made you think "Say, that guy has something there?"

Again, I'm assuming your goal is to contribute in some way to greater representation of conservative views in legal academia. Assuming that, you do a further disservice to such efforts by explicitly linking your uncharitable arguments to the group doing the most to promote that goal. I know Federalist Society folks at my school, and I respect them, and have learned from them. I would cease to respect them if they threw around "moonbat" and made out-of-kilter comparisons that betrayed a heavy bias, and I wouldn't listen to them long enough to modify my views. I don't hold your rhetorical tactics against the Federalist Society as a whole, but some will.

Look up "maxim of charity" and think hard about its usefulness as a rhetorical strategy. I am absolutely serious about that. Even if you feel that the predicament of conservatism in law schools is so dire that stridency is justified (and, to be clear, I'm not basing these comments solely on your contributions to this thread; I've been reading this blog for over a year), make the strategic decision to forgo its indulgence in favor of more effective choices in argument. I promise you'll make more of a difference.

For whatever it's worth to you, your willingness to at least concede the Chemerinsky firing was foolish in some respect leads me to believe you can make some concessions when logic dictates it. I leave you with the benefit of the doubt, and hope to read more thought-provoking posts above your name as time goes on, in place of the broadsides you've been wont to post. True debate is a good thing.

Regardless of the merits of 10:02's arguments, s/he's right about one thing - Pepperdine is a toilet.

Is that really in dispute??

11:30 - If you feel "academic qualifications" are so necessary to have an opinion about Chemerinsky, why don't you share yours with us?

Oh, that's right. You don't have an opinion. You're just parroting what Doug Kmiec wrote in the LA Times. But that's not a name drop at all, right?

Idiot.

Do Pepperdine graduates even get jobs these days?

Years ago, you couldn't get hired, no matter what your rank, if you came from Pepperdine.

I was dismissing Doug Kmiec as a TTT because the poster name-dropping him was essentially saying, "What are your academic qualifications? This really smart and credentialed prof thinks otherwise, so unless you have superior academic qualifications, you are wrong."

FWIW, I probably have better "academic qualifications" than Kmiec, who went to USC for law school and, from what I can tell, did not clerk for a respectable judge. But I won't be any more specific than that.

Fed Soc wrote: "Not to mention that he was good friend with Larry Flynt (a friendship that reflects well on the open-mindedness of both men)."

Maybe when you get to 3L you'll read the 1st Amendment case where Falwell sued Flynt for publishing a parody of Falwell as an outhouse-using motherfucker (literally).

What a maroon.

Lat - why isn't anyone talking about the female SA who punched Chemerinsky? Did she have her offer withdrawn as well???

This is the REAL issue here, folks.

Lulz...Chemerinsky is a TTT who got PWN3D!!!1

HTH.

--Unnamed Elite Con Law Scholar

I don't go to Pepperdine, but I completely dispute the assertion that it is a "toilet." For those that won't take this post seriously without some disclosure of credentials, I will be clerking for a rather prestigious COA judge next year.

Do you people really think the legitimacy of one as a scholar or attorney is completely defined by the school they attended? I don't think 10:02 is implying that he/she is more legit than Kmiec merely because he/she attended a higher-ranked school, but if that's the case, that's bogus.

This was a bad move on UCI's part, IMO.

However, I went to UCI undergrad as a political science major -- and just about the entire School of Social Sciences was absolutely as far-left as it could be. I know someone who most definitely got her grade docked because she argued conservative view points too fervantly in class. The school is not overall entirely conservative, but it IS in Orange County, land of monied conservatives ...

I'm going to take bar / bri this year. Just of out curiosity, does Chemerinsky give every con law lecture via videotape or do you have to be "lucky" enough to attend bar / bri at whatever site he is lecturing at?

To Let the Eagle Soar, on UC Irvine:

In 2008, U.S. News and World Report ranked UCI as the 44th best university in the United States, and 13th best public university in the United States. UC Irvine is also the youngest university (regardless of public or private status) to make the top 50 list of American Schools of "Top National Universities" in the United States. Three faculty have been named National Medal of Science recipients. Additionally, three researchers from UCI's faculty received the Nobel Prize during their tenure at UCI: Frank Sherwood Rowland (Chemistry, 1995), Frederick Reines (Physics, 1995) (deceased), and Irwin Rose (Chemistry, 2004).

To Maxine, on Pepperdine:

I work for a BigLaw firm in L.A. Pepperdine Law grads occupy the offices on either side of me. Apparently, someone is still hiring them.

To 10:02 (posting at 11:47), on USC:

How does Kmiec having graduated from USC Law diminish his academic qualifications? USC Law is ranked 16th by U.S. News & World Report.

An honors graduate of Northwestern, Professor Kmiec received his law degree from the University of Southern California, where he served on the Law Review and received the Legion Lex Commencement Prize for Legal Writing. He is a member of the bar of the U.S.