Rendered at 07:36:33 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
gregw2 2 days ago [-]
Posner had a significant influence on the Microsoft antitrust trial back in 1999-2001, both his legal thinking before the trial and being appointed by the judge in that trial to serve (ultimately unsuccessfully) as a mediator amidst the trial.
TZubiri 2 days ago [-]
I still don't understand why the IE + Win bundling would be illegal or unethical yet, but Microsoft definitely understood it, because their defense was "we didn't bundle it" rather than "bundling is fine". I wonder how the case would have gone if they just went the second route.
xhevahir 2 days ago [-]
Posner did more than anyone else to consign law to a branch of economics, specifically economics as understood by the Chicago School.
wahern 2 days ago [-]
Meh. I don't think Law & Economics has ever become nearly as influential as Scalia's Original Meaning did. Not long ago everybody seemed to admit Scalia's constitutional philosophy had become the new orthodoxy that even liberals (with some distaste) came to embrace. But since his death Scalia's ideas have been so thoroughly and rapidly corrupted (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish?), particularly by conservatives, that I'd argue their influence is barely recognizable today, mostly as a peculiar phase or detour. What remains are his incoherent addendums (i.e. amateur historical exegesis) he tried to develop to make it work when it became popular. Law & Economics will probably remain influential for a much longer time, but only because it'll remain a minority approach or one approach among many in a toolbox.
If Posner had been elevated to the Supreme Court so a cult could develop then the same thing might have happened, though I think Posner was less doctrinaire so maybe the trajectory would've remained the same.
rickydroll 2 days ago [-]
> But since his death Scalia's ideas have been so thoroughly and rapidly corrupted (Embrace, Extend, Extinguish?), particularly by conservatives,
Instead of embrace, extend, extinguish, I would suggest it's judicial Calvinball.
stvltvs 2 days ago [-]
I suggest that trying to apply Scalia's ideas revealed that they were always incoherent and impractical, and conservative judges are still hoping to patch them up.
wahern 10 hours ago [-]
I'd agree with both of you. Original Meaning was supposed to be a clever hack to prevent or mitigate judicial calvinball, but it's obviously no better and perhaps even worse than living constitutionalism calvinball. I figured that's how it'd play out, and earned the ire of one of my law professors (now on the DC court of appeals) for regularly (if perhaps obnoxiously) suggesting as much in class discussion.
I'm not a fan of Justice Jackson's opinions' political bent (notwithstanding I probably vote identically to her in elections), but I think it's awesome the way she's trying to defend and revive traditional methods of constitutional and statutory interpretation, including use of legislative history. They never went away because they're useful and inevitable. Even conservatives like Roberts and some other conservative justices have continued to use them, they've just done so coyly to avoid the ire of the missionaries. Better to be honest about the way the sausage is made and not pretend there are any magical, mechanical solutions.
throwaway81523 2 days ago [-]
Age 87. I had to read some stuff by him a long time ago.
zoeysmithe 2 days ago [-]
[flagged]
method_capital 2 days ago [-]
We’d all be so blue
If we just listened to you
Fascist Barkeeps too.
Haiku
Gibbon1 2 days ago [-]
I just remember that's guys essay explaining why you throw poor people in prison, fine middle class people and wealthy people you don't need to do anything to.
It'd violate site rules to describe fully what I think of that.
If Posner had been elevated to the Supreme Court so a cult could develop then the same thing might have happened, though I think Posner was less doctrinaire so maybe the trajectory would've remained the same.
Instead of embrace, extend, extinguish, I would suggest it's judicial Calvinball.
I'm not a fan of Justice Jackson's opinions' political bent (notwithstanding I probably vote identically to her in elections), but I think it's awesome the way she's trying to defend and revive traditional methods of constitutional and statutory interpretation, including use of legislative history. They never went away because they're useful and inevitable. Even conservatives like Roberts and some other conservative justices have continued to use them, they've just done so coyly to avoid the ire of the missionaries. Better to be honest about the way the sausage is made and not pretend there are any magical, mechanical solutions.
It'd violate site rules to describe fully what I think of that.