« Policing the (once again) modern city | Main | Get those potential torture victims off your mother f***ing plane »
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Greetings from Ann Bartow in EVEN SUNNIER Columbia, South Carolina!
Not that I'm feeling competitive with fellow guest blogger Lesley Wexler or anything! I jest, of course. I'm not even supposed to start guest blogging here until tomorrow but Dan sent me the keys to the blog this morning, so I thought I'd start fomenting feminist revolution a day early. Or at least say a cheery hello, following Lesley's gracious lead. Hey y'all, how y'all doing?
I'm an Associate Professor of Law (with tenure) at the University of South Carolina School of Law, and just finished up my seventh year here. I've been blogging for going on three years at Sivacracy and at Feminist Law Professors for slightly over a year. I teach and write about Intellectual Property Law and Feminist Legal Theory. Obligatory scholarship plug: most of my writings are available at my BePress page or my SSRN Page. I like puppies, kittens, and long walks in the rain.
I'll pretty much be writing about whatever I friggin' feel like (did I mention that I have tenure?) but will at some point blog a bit about the intersection of copyright law and pornography, though that will not be the topic of my first substantive post, in part to avoid unfortunate puns like "starting off with a bang." I'll probably post about Internet Harassment issues as well. We'll see how it goes.
See you tomorrow!
Posted by Ann Bartow on May 31, 2007 at 11:24 AM in Blogging | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef00d835806b0e69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Greetings from Ann Bartow in EVEN SUNNIER Columbia, South Carolina!:
Comments
Joseph,
I had in mind Ann's post about Ledbetter -- there are, to be sure, serious and coherent arguments that can be advanced that Ledbetter was wrongly-decided, and even more numerous and diverse arguments that the result is bad as a matter of policy (although I don't think that's of any relevance, there are those who'd disagree), but Ann's post seems doesn't really seem within that ballpark. I'd expect "Thank you, Justice Ginsburg, for caring so much, and for helping to keep hope alive" from a Daily Kos diarist, but with all due respect, not a tenured law professor. I'm inviting (somewhat snarkily, I admit) Ann to advance a more serious evaluation of the case, and perhaps offer more concrete moorings for her apparent dissatisfaction with the decision.
Re rehashing our rehashing (which I hope to get back to, time allowing), I do think that this is a fairly easy question of statutory interpretation when viewed through my lens. While I realize this is a bit of a cop-out, I wrote a fairly long comment answering a substantively similar (if not identical) question over at Prof. Althouse's blog, so in the interests of efficiency and with one eye on the clock, I'd like to just point to that for now as to why I think it's a pretty easy question. The gist of it would be that yes, given my views of law and statutory interpretation, I think the statute, when applied to these facts, "inescapably requires" the result in Ledbetter, because I think the statute requires the presence of two elements that do not meet in the normal process of issuing a paycheque, which means that the freestanding issuance of a paycheque cannot constitute a clock-starting event.
As to "if one assumes the statute 'inescapbably required' the result, the answer would pretty much have to be, 'amend the statute,' right?" -- that depends on exactly what the question is. ;) But sure, I agree, the best result here would be for Congress to amend the statute. But I would stress that it's for Congress to fix.
Posted by: Simon | May 31, 2007 5:35:12 PM
Welcome, Ann. Looking forward to your posts.
Posted by: Orin Kerr | May 31, 2007 5:29:32 PM
Happy blogging, Ann, for the two more hours that I am your colleague.
Posted by: Deb Ahrens | May 31, 2007 2:43:59 PM
Welcome, Ann! Great to see you blogging in a new venue.
Posted by: Heidi Kitrosser | May 31, 2007 2:24:44 PM
Welcome, Ann! Glad to see more ol.., um, tenured, seasoned profs guesting here.
Simon:
Assuming you're talking about Ledbetter, I don't want to rehash our rehashing, and I know you think Ledbetter came out the correct way, but do you really believe the *statute* Title VII -- ignoring, for the moment, cases that arguably support the majorty -- "inescapably requires" the result in Ledbetter?
Of course, if one assumes the statute "inescapbably required" the result, the answer would pretty much have to be, "amend the statute," right?
Posted by: Joseph Slater | May 31, 2007 1:27:20 PM
Perhaps the foment could begin with a timely post discussing what should happen when a court confronts a statute which inescapably requires a result that is less than optimal from (your) perspective of women's rights?
Posted by: Simon | May 31, 2007 12:32:36 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.