« JOTWELL: Lahav on Frost on nationwide injunctions | Main | When a colleague suddenly walks around in new tennis shoes... »

Wednesday, October 24, 2018

Two worth reading

Light week, but I wanted to link to two pieces worth reading.

The first is by Brooke Coleman (Seattle) on the unrepresentative composition of the Rules Committees (as appointed by the Chief). The second compares the linguistic paternalism and authoritarianism of the LGBTQ+ movement to the anti-porn feminist movement of the 1980s.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on October 24, 2018 at 04:58 PM in Howard Wasserman | Permalink


This post is not an appropriate forum for a discussion of the faith-based arguments for or against same-sex marriage and I am not interested in having those arguments. You are welcome to have them in any other place you would like. Just not here.

Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Nov 1, 2018 11:43:33 AM

Interesting reading indeed . But , Brooke on that committee ( dictating rules ) is bit overwhelming I would suggest :

Seeking justice is good . Changing and correcting things is good . But , first , he could obtain the comment of that committee or its speaker , and publish it , side by side along with his personal take . It seems that he hadn't bothered at all. So , speaking of justice with all due respect of course .

Also , before criticizing rules or laws or jurisprudence , one needs very comprehensive expertise and reconnaissance with it . He didn't bother even , to explain the rationals of the subjects of criticism made by him . After understanding and presenting the underlying rational , then comes the concrete and just critique .

For example :

Efficiency , is a very major player in courts . Without efficiency , there is nothing . A simple conflict between both crazy neighbors , can take huge resources and time consuming , endless proceedings , all ,at the back , of severe and complex cases . We can't really understand always why is it so .

Or take the issue of " commonality " in class action :

In law , every slight fact or different factual configuration , matters . One apparent negligible fact , dictates huge difference , between one case , and apparently , similar case . So , in class action , commonality , is very critical . And not to forget at first place :

That class action , among others, at first place , meant to give power to large group , of common people , over corporations . So, they would come unified , with greater power of the collective , over , a case of one person V. huge corporation , with negligible chance of course .


Posted by: El roam | Oct 24, 2018 6:47:05 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.