This is why I get a kick out of you guys.  I get attacked for “motivational 
reasoning”, but your first reflex is to go find a sympathetic voice that 
supports your preexisting position and convince yourself that you have proved 
your point.   The Posner-Scalia fight was of great interest and attention 
several years ago, generating an extensive secondary commentary on it.  
Scalia’s reputation came out fine.  And by the way, separate and apart from the 
personal aspect of the dispute, the philosophical difference between Scalia and 
Posner. which is textualism (what the statute actually says) vs. purposivism 
(what was the purpose of the statute), is a family dispute – both are in the 
originalism family tree, so of course the level of vitriol between the two is 
inversely proportional to the real difference between the two, the narcissism 
of small differences.

David Shemano

From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Meeropol
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2016 2:39 PM
To: Progressive Economics
Subject: [Pen-l] POSNER on SCALIA

Marv's linking the Posner review of one of Scalia's books is priceless -- I 
urge people to read Posner's evisceration of Scalia's reasoning.   I especially 
think David Shemano ought to read it since he believes Scalia is a consistent 
(mostly consistent) intellectual giant rather than a politically motivated 
enabler of the powerful ....
Remember that Posner is in many ways a right-winger.  He virtually created the 
field of Law and Economics which defends the outcomes of the market system no 
matter how immoral the results ---
If he hadn't been a Marxist in his youth (his mother was a communist --- in 
fact my family and his family were friends when I was a teenager) he would have 
certainly been a Reagan appointee to the Supreme Court ....
____________________________________________________
 
Information contained in this e-mail transmission may be privileged, 
confidential and covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 
U.S.C. Sections 2510-2521.

If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, distribute, or reproduce 
this transmission.

If you have received this e-mail transmission in error, please notify us 
immediately of the error by return email and please delete the message from 
your system.

Pursuant to requirements related to practice before the U. S. Internal Revenue 
Service, any tax advice contained in this communication (including any 
attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of 
(i) avoiding penalties imposed under the U. S. Internal Revenue Code or (ii) 
promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any tax-related matter.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

Robins Kaplan LLP
http://www.robinskaplan.com 
____________________________________________________
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to