The UNAUTHORIZED blogger collective for the University of Colorado Law School.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
A bit of fame
HS forwarded this article to me. It appears that our own Professor RN will be filing an amicus brief in the Scooter Libby trial. The judge's footnote is great...is it must me or is there a bit of sarcasm?
21 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Republican douchebags. Scooter Libby is an a-hole. Have fun in prison.
Well put, but I couldn't tell whether Anon 9:36 was kidding or not. It seems like we need to apply some common sense in deciding what constitutes an "outing." Discussing "SL" during the week he is national news is not an "outing," nor is discussing a column published nationwide by "PL" and which invites open public comment online.
Along the same lines, I don't understand why "RN" was referred to by his initials in the initial post when the link provided his full name, and he's openly offering his expertise to the court.
Please refer to previous outing conversations - it is apparent that some readers are offended by the mention of any name (as opposed to initials). Likewise, I propose that all mention of any name be put in initial form.
I wasn't here for the prior discussions on 'outing' but in the name of common sense I counter-propose that when we refer to fellow students we use initials(since we each might not want to appear in unflattering contexts when Googled by law firm, etc), but for anyone else, including professors who have inserted themselves in the public eye (which includes Nagel and Campos in this thread), posters should use the real names so we all understand what we are discussing and not relying on some cagey inside knowledge of the school. Otherwise the blog becomes a puzzle to read, and appears to the outside world downright silly.
Beyond that, per the judge's suggestion, do you think Nagel will open up a clinic to connect students as pen-pals with convicted political appointees?
I agree with anon 1:08. While I have no idea what was posted regarding the "outing" question, when you are referring to individuals in the public eye or whose names appear in the links you post, then just using initials seems silly. Moreover, mentioning Nagel or Campos by name to advertise something they have published (or will) doesn't--in itself--cast any negative light on them. That being the case, what is the problem exactly?
The comments at the beginning of this thread ask how can we 'out' other people on this board? I think it's fine to mention professors in this context - we're talking about their publications. It is entirely ironic (intentionally?) to bring this up in the context of the Libby sentence though - didn't he or his superiors also 'out' someone... oh yeah, it was a covert CIA operative - and that's not cool. Campos, Nagel, etc will get over being mentioned by name on this blawg in an hour, Valeria Plame will not get over her 'outing' in an hour to say the least...
The amicus brief seems based in ideology: how do we create legal arguments to prevent Libby from going to jail? I, for one, am embarassed that Prof. RN - among a number of other conservative law professors at other schools - would attempt to defend Libby by attacking the constitutionality of the special prosecutor's position. This is a clear attempt to use the law to subvert the interests of justice - and if it was made in good faith it should have been made years ago, instead of making the argument now in a lame attempt to prevent Libby from going to jail. Let him and Paris share a cell - omg, it'd be, like, sooo hot.
Look, Libby - and probably his unindicted superiors - outed a CIA officer... it was (and remains) a disgrace to our country. Libby should go to jail, and serve his time.
Prof. RN is conservative, and that's just fine - personally, I don't have anything against the guy. But he shouldn't let his political perogative skew the truth of this situation: Libby lied under oath (re outing a covert CIA officer), and ought to go to jail. Period. Arguments claiming that the process was unconstitutional (now that Libby is going to jail) are a disingenuous use of the legal system and our constitution.
I'm confused. On one hand you say that it isn't an out (or it is at least appropriate) to call the professors by name. Yet, you refer to Professor Nagel as Professor RN. What gives?
Using the full name of a professor (and probably even a fellow student) when discussing an area where they have chosen to expose themselves to the broader public isn't a problem. I think the problem is making people google-able on a topic not intended for the broader public. Campos writes a column for the Rocky? No problem to link to it with his name. Ohm is guest blogging on the Volokh Conspiracy? Use his full name. Prof. SP says something funny in class? Maybe the whole world (of his colleagues and potential future employers) does not need to know about it.
Wow. Just got around to actually reading the amicus brief submitted by RN et al. Did anyone else read it? It’s nine pages, and pretty shockingly mediocre for the work of a consortium of the country’s top legal minds (or whichever brownnosing RA of one of the Ivy League professors actually wrote the thing). The staggering constitutional question the professors hope to answer is “whether the Appointments Clause issue is a close one,” and they conclude that, yes, it is a close question. Hmmm. I thought we all knew that from Con Law, but apparently the force of personality behind this brief is supposed to persuade the judge to reverse his decision . . .
The whole brief is pretty depressing for what it says about the profession we’re entering, and what “strong” legal arguments are supposed to look like. The whole argument essentially runs: (1) Morrison was a close case; (2) Edmond later made some unclear comments about Morrison; and (3) there are some fact differences between the roles of the prosecutors in Morrison and Libby’s trial. Therefore, these esteemed legal professors conclude, it’s unclear whether Fitzgerald’s appointment was constitutional. Okay. So what? Is the judge supposed to reverse himself on this? As much as I may disagree with him on other points, I think Campos’s railing against the stupidity of legal “reasoning” is amply borne out by this brief. I’d encourage anyone to check it out.
21 comments:
Republican douchebags. Scooter Libby is an a-hole. Have fun in prison.
See Campos's latest column in the Rocky Mountain News, about much the same thing (albeit from a different perspective).
At least Federal Judges aren't arrogant or anything...
-MrMeatSir
Not cool with all the outings on this board:
1. SL
2. PC
What the heck is wrong with you people?
RE: outings on the the blog on a "SL" related thread:
Psst...VP is a CIA operative! Pass it on. On second thought, maybe that's not such a good idea.
I think "SL" has more pressing concerns than having his full name appearing on CUBlawg...
Well put, but I couldn't tell whether Anon 9:36 was kidding or not. It seems like we need to apply some common sense in deciding what constitutes an "outing." Discussing "SL" during the week he is national news is not an "outing," nor is discussing a column published nationwide by "PL" and which invites open public comment online.
Along the same lines, I don't understand why "RN" was referred to by his initials in the initial post when the link provided his full name, and he's openly offering his expertise to the court.
Please refer to previous outing conversations - it is apparent that some readers are offended by the mention of any name (as opposed to initials). Likewise, I propose that all mention of any name be put in initial form.
I wasn't here for the prior discussions on 'outing' but in the name of common sense I counter-propose that when we refer to fellow students we use initials(since we each might not want to appear in unflattering contexts when Googled by law firm, etc), but for anyone else, including professors who have inserted themselves in the public eye (which includes Nagel and Campos in this thread), posters should use the real names so we all understand what we are discussing and not relying on some cagey inside knowledge of the school. Otherwise the blog becomes a puzzle to read, and appears to the outside world downright silly.
Beyond that, per the judge's suggestion, do you think Nagel will open up a clinic to connect students as pen-pals with convicted political appointees?
I agree with anon 1:08. While I have no idea what was posted regarding the "outing" question, when you are referring to individuals in the public eye or whose names appear in the links you post, then just using initials seems silly. Moreover, mentioning Nagel or Campos by name to advertise something they have published (or will) doesn't--in itself--cast any negative light on them. That being the case, what is the problem exactly?
Alright, what about using someones blogging moniker - is that an outing? For example, can I say Dirty Harry, or do I have to say DH?
It was CM in the B with the C.
No, no, it was MS in the BR with the LP!
hilarious. i love it.
What about ALJs?
After reading this thread, I'm thinking about taking a nice BM.
Gee, I hope everything comes out alright in the end!
Everything comes down to poo.
The comments at the beginning of this thread ask how can we 'out' other people on this board? I think it's fine to mention professors in this context - we're talking about their publications. It is entirely ironic (intentionally?) to bring this up in the context of the Libby sentence though - didn't he or his superiors also 'out' someone... oh yeah, it was a covert CIA operative - and that's not cool. Campos, Nagel, etc will get over being mentioned by name on this blawg in an hour, Valeria Plame will not get over her 'outing' in an hour to say the least...
The amicus brief seems based in ideology: how do we create legal arguments to prevent Libby from going to jail? I, for one, am embarassed that Prof. RN - among a number of other conservative law professors at other schools - would attempt to defend Libby by attacking the constitutionality of the special prosecutor's position. This is a clear attempt to use the law to subvert the interests of justice - and if it was made in good faith it should have been made years ago, instead of making the argument now in a lame attempt to prevent Libby from going to jail. Let him and Paris share a cell - omg, it'd be, like, sooo hot.
Look, Libby - and probably his unindicted superiors - outed a CIA officer... it was (and remains) a disgrace to our country. Libby should go to jail, and serve his time.
Prof. RN is conservative, and that's just fine - personally, I don't have anything against the guy. But he shouldn't let his political perogative skew the truth of this situation: Libby lied under oath (re outing a covert CIA officer), and ought to go to jail. Period. Arguments claiming that the process was unconstitutional (now that Libby is going to jail) are a disingenuous use of the legal system and our constitution.
I'm confused. On one hand you say that it isn't an out (or it is at least appropriate) to call the professors by name. Yet, you refer to Professor Nagel as Professor RN. What gives?
Additionally, IMO, Nagel is douche.
Using the full name of a professor (and probably even a fellow student) when discussing an area where they have chosen to expose themselves to the broader public isn't a problem. I think the problem is making people google-able on a topic not intended for the broader public. Campos writes a column for the Rocky? No problem to link to it with his name. Ohm is guest blogging on the Volokh Conspiracy? Use his full name. Prof. SP says something funny in class? Maybe the whole world (of his colleagues and potential future employers) does not need to know about it.
Wow. Just got around to actually reading the amicus brief submitted by RN et al. Did anyone else read it? It’s nine pages, and pretty shockingly mediocre for the work of a consortium of the country’s top legal minds (or whichever brownnosing RA of one of the Ivy League professors actually wrote the thing). The staggering constitutional question the professors hope to answer is “whether the Appointments Clause issue is a close one,” and they conclude that, yes, it is a close question. Hmmm. I thought we all knew that from Con Law, but apparently the force of personality behind this brief is supposed to persuade the judge to reverse his decision . . .
The whole brief is pretty depressing for what it says about the profession we’re entering, and what “strong” legal arguments are supposed to look like. The whole argument essentially runs: (1) Morrison was a close case; (2) Edmond later made some unclear comments about Morrison; and (3) there are some fact differences between the roles of the prosecutors in Morrison and Libby’s trial. Therefore, these esteemed legal professors conclude, it’s unclear whether Fitzgerald’s appointment was constitutional. Okay. So what? Is the judge supposed to reverse himself on this? As much as I may disagree with him on other points, I think Campos’s railing against the stupidity of legal “reasoning” is amply borne out by this brief. I’d encourage anyone to check it out.
Post a Comment