webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

posner, richard 7th

also eric at U chic?

oft " in torres -sp corp cit?!

---

AN 10 25

A recent unanimous ruling against one of President Donald Trump's key policies suggests that the Supreme Court may have overplayed its hand, making rebels out of conservative lower court judges.

That's according to Slate legal correspondents Mark Joseph Stern and Dahlia Lithwick, who argued on Monday that last week's 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling preventing Trump from deploying the National Guard in Illinois may have been rooted in animus against how the nation's highest court has treated lower courts. That 7th Circuit ruling upheld a previous ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in which the Trump administration's assertion that calling the guard was necessary to quell a "rebellion" in Chicago failed to convince the court to let him move forward with the deployment. The 3-0 panel even included Trump appointee Amy St. Eve.

Lithwick and Stern observed that the district court stage of litigation is typically seen as the "fact-finding" part of a legal case. And appellate court judges in those respective circuits are usually bound to accept the facts of the district courts unless they were proven to be erroneous.

The experts then pivoted to the Supreme Court's habit during Trump's second term of overturning lower court rulings, often in emergency docket or "shadow docket" rulings that contain no rationale or explanation for their decisions.

"I’m wondering if it was an unforced error by the U.S. Supreme Court to treat lower courts — their findings of fact, their efforts to do hard doctrinal work under unbelievably challenging circumstances — with hostility or overt contempt," Lithwick said. "I find myself wondering if the court, particularly over the summer, made a lot of enemies by using dismissive rhetoric, and now in a lot of ways emboldening judges to say: Not today, Satan. Don’t lie to me."

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

IFrame Content

Stern agreed, saying: "[W]e are starting to see some conservative judges on the lower courts bristle at the way that the Supreme Court is treating them and their colleagues."

"It seems to me that the Supreme Court has fomented an 'us vs. them' dynamic with the lower courts. It’s presenting itself as the final arbiter of all facts on the ground, ignoring its obligation to defer to what the district court believes is happening in the real world," Stern said. "The Supreme Court has decided: We know everything, we have a crystal ball, we are omnipresent and omnipotent. That arrogance doesn’t just offend the lower courts’ egos — it undercuts the work they see as their duty, especially the careful establishment of facts. So when the Supreme Court treats fact-finding as optional, maybe judges like St. Eve respond by making it decisive. They’re not just fact-checking, they’re reality-checking."

Click here to read Lithwick and Stern's full analysis in Slate (subscription required).

---

older no lnx

National Review Online is trying to push back on the mea culpa of a judge who now thinks strict voter ID does in fact impermissibly discriminate, maintaining its long-standing position as a supporter of election changes that have been widely denounced as blatant forms of voter suppression.

In 2007, well-known and respected conservative Judge Richard Posner of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld a voter ID law in Indiana that was the first in a wave of increasingly stricter restrictions on the right to vote passed by Republican-controlled legislatures.Affirmed by a splintered Supreme Court, as the sole high-profile legal decision on the sort of unnecessary and redundant voter ID laws that are now widely promoted by the GOP, Crawford v. Marion County Elections Board has been incessantly trumpeted by right-wing media as the legal underpinning for their obsession with election changes that are documented to suppress the vote.

Now that Posner has bluntly admitted he was wrong and the evidence shows that strict voter ID is "now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than fraud prevention," NRO is resorting to smearing the judge's integrity and intelligence.

Legal contributor Hans von Spakovsky, the repeatedly discredited champion of photo voter ID laws as the alleged "solution" to the virtually non-existent "problem" of in-person voter fraud, responded to the news of Posner's recent admission by claiming the judge had "been taken in" by the "Left's well-oiled propaganda machine." NRO's in-house legal expert, Ed Whelan, asserted that a switch in judgment by the judge was "weak" and praised a Washington Post columnist who attacked the judge as unethical for speaking publicly.

Von Spakovsky's attempt to rebut Posner's revelation by pointing to increased turnout in communities of color was a rehash of his continued failing of Statistics 101. As has been explained to von Spakovsky and others by statisticians, academics, and congressmen, just because more persons of color are voting now as the country grows more diverse doesn't mean that overly restrictive voting changes aren't suppressing the vote.

Not only is this confusing causation with correlation, but suppressing the vote also occurs when it becomes harder to do, not just when it is blocked entirely. The federal judge who blocked Texas' strict voter ID law because 600,000 to 800,000 citizens do not have easy access to the supporting documentation needed for the new identification requirements held that "a law that forces poorer citizens to choose between their wages and their franchise unquestionably denies or abridges their right to vote."

The Retrograde Right-Wing Media Campaign Against Judicial Nominee Cornelia Pillard...

==

judge 180 on voter ID?

So: Why the shift in how the courts view these laws? Some high-profile changes of heart may have helped. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who was part of the Supreme Courtmajority that upheld the Indiana lawin Crawford, recently called it “a fairly unfortunate decision,” adding that the justices didn’t have access to enough information on the law’s impact.Judge Richard Posner, a conservative who wrote the appeals court decision that approved the same law, has gone further. He made clear in 2013 that he got Crawford wrong, writing that voter ID laws are “now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.”

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/08/why_the_supreme_court_won_t_likely_revisit_shelby_county.html

==

Richard Allen Posner (/:{ˈpoʊznər:(style="border-bottom:1px dotted"):}:/; born January 11, 1939) is an American jurist and economist, who is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago and a Senior Lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. He is a leading figure in the field of law and economics, and was identified by The Journal of Legal Studies as the most cited legal scholar of the 20th century.[1]

Posner is the author of nearly 40 books on jurisprudence, economics, and several other topics, including Economic Analysis of Law, The Economics of Justice, The Problems of Jurisprudence, Sex and Reason, Law, Pragmatism and Democracy, and The Crisis of Capitalist Democracy. Posner has generally been identified as being politically conservative; however, in recent years he has distanced himself from the positions of the Republican party[2] authoring more liberal rulings involving same-sex marriage and abortion.[3][4]

Early life and education

Born to a Jewish family[5] in New York City, Posner graduated from Yale University (A.B., 1959, summa cum laude), majoring in English, and from Harvard Law School(LL.B., 1962, magna cum laude), where he was valedictorian of his class[6] and president of the Harvard Law Review. After clerking for Justice William J. Brennan of the United States Supreme Court during the 1962–63 term, he served as Attorney-Advisor to Federal Trade Commissioner Philip Elman; he would later argue that the Federal Trade Commission ought to be abolished.[6] He went on to work in the Office of the Solicitor General in the U.S. Department of Justice, under Solicitor General Thurgood Marshall.[6]

Legal career

External video|  Discussion with Posner and his biographer William Domnarski at the Seminary Coop Bookstore in Chicago[7] |

In 1968, Posner accepted a position teaching at Stanford Law School.[6] In 1969, Posner moved to the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School, where he remains a Senior Lecturer. He was a founding editor of The Journal of Legal Studies in 1972.

On October 27, 1981, Posner was nominated by President Ronald Reagan to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated by Philip Willis Tone.[8] Posner was confirmed by the United States Senate on November 24, 1981, and received his commission on December 1, 1981. He served as Chief Judge of that court from 1993 to 2000 but remained a part-time professor at the University of Chicago.[8]

Posner is a pragmatist in philosophy and an economist in legal methodology. He has written many articles and books on a wide range of topics including law and economics, law and literature, the federal judiciary, moral theory, intellectual property, antitrust law, public intellectuals, and legal history. He is also well known for writing on a wide variety of current events including the 2000 presidential election recount controversy, Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky[8] and his resulting impeachment procedure,[9] and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[10]

His analysis of the Lewinsky scandal cut across most party and ideological divisions. Posner's greatest influence is through his writings on law and economics; The New York Times called him "one of the most important antitrust scholars of the past half-century." In December 2004, Posner started a joint blog with Nobel Prize-winning economist Gary Becker, titled simply "The Becker-Posner Blog".[11] Both men contributed to the blog until shortly before Becker's death in May 2014, after which Posner announced that the blog was being discontinued.[12] He also has a blog at *The Atlantic*, where he discusses the financial crisis.[13]

Posner was mentioned in 2005 as a potential nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor because of his prominence as a scholar and an appellate judge. Robert S. Boynton has written in The Washington Post that he believes Posner will never sit on the Supreme Court because despite his "obvious brilliance," he would be criticized for his occasionally "outrageous conclusions," such as his contention "that the rule of law is an accidental and dispensable element of legal ideology," his argument that buying and selling children on the free market would lead to better outcomes than the present situation, government-regulated adoption, and his support for the legalization of marijuana and LSD.[14]

Posner on Posner Series

Judge Posner was the focus of a "series" of posts (many Q&A interviews with the Judge) done by University of Washington Law Professor Ronald K. L. Collins. The twelve posts—collectively titled "Posner on Posner"—began on November 24, 2014 and ended on January 5, 2015 and appeared on the Concurring Opinions blog.[15]

Legal and philosophical positions

Today, although generally viewed as to the right in academia, Posner's pragmatism, his qualified moral relativism and moral skepticism,[16] and his affection for the thought of Friedrich Nietzsche set him apart from most American conservatives. As a judge, with the exception of his rulings with respect to the sentencing guidelines and the recording of police actions, Posner's judicial votes have always placed him on the moderate-to-liberal wing of the Republican Party, where he has become more isolated over time. In July 2012, Posner stated, "I've become less conservative since the Republican Party started becoming goofy."[17] Among Posner's judicial influences are the American jurists Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. and Learned Hand.In Posner's youth and in the 1960s as law clerk to William J. Brennan he was generally counted as a liberal. However, in reaction to some of the perceived excesses of the late 1960s, Posner developed a strongly conservative bent. He encountered Chicago School economists Aaron Director and George Stigler while a professor at Stanford.[6] Posner summarized his views on law and economics in his 1973 book The Economic Analysis of Law.[6]

In June 2016, Posner was criticized by right-wing media organizations for a column he wrote for Slate in which he stated, "I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation."[18][19]

==

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/12/personhood_for_corporations_and_chimpanzees_is_an_essential_legal_fiction.html

Tommy lives in a cage in the town of Gloversville, N.Y. He has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with a state court, asking for release from captivity. But Tommy is a chimpanzee (the petition was filed on his behalf by an animal rights group), and New York grants the right of habeas review to “persons.”

So Tommy must persuade a judge that he is a person if he is to have his day in court. He and the craft company Hobby Lobby—which operates according to its owners’ Christian convictions, and is mounting a religious freedom challenge to the contraception mandate in Obamacare—have become an unlikely pair in an ideologically tinged battle over what a “person” is. There has been much mockery of the idea that “corporations are people, my friend,” as Mitt Romney put it. But if you think it matters whether the law calls a chimpanzee, corporation, or even human zygote a “person,” you are making a fundamental error about how the law works.

From a legal standpoint, there is nothing remarkable about a chimpanzee claiming to be a person. Indeed, there are a number of cases that have been brought by animals—including a palila, a marbled murrelet, and a spotted owl. All of these animals sought to enforce their rights under the Endangered Species Act, under a provision that gives “persons” the right to bring suit.

In none of these cases was a judge fooled into thinking that an animal possesses all the rights of human beings. The lawyers bringing them were simply ensuring that a judicial remedy was available to address the harm that Congress sought to fix. If the spotted owl had also asked for the right to vote, the request would have been denied. A judge wouldn’t give a hoot that an earlier court had deemed the owl a “person” under the Endangered Species Act. A person for one legal purpose is not necessarily a person for another.

The law also treats various nonhuman, nonsentient entities as “persons” for certain legal purposes. Corporations, estates, trusts, partnerships, and government entities are often defined this way. Walmart, Illinois, and the California Pension Fund can sue, for example, without anyone asking if they have a right to abortion. Sometimes, corporations can bring suit (or be sued) because a statute explicitly gives “persons” that right, and defines “persons” to include corporations. At other times, the statute does not define “persons,” but courts interpret the word to include corporations because they believe that is what Congress intended. This transubstantiation of corporations into persons advances some pretty uncontroversial policy goals. If corporations lacked personhood, you couldn’t sue FedEx for crashing a van into your car, or Walmart for selling you a defective space heater that burns down your home, or J.P. Morgan for defrauding you when you get a lemon mortgage. You wouldn’t be able to enter into contracts with a corporation at all. Legislatures and courts have been treating corporations like persons for hundreds of years: There is even a general interpretive rule in the law that when Congress says “persons,” it means corporations as well, unless the context of the statute provides otherwise.

The legal fiction that corporations are persons helps courts prevent people from evading, or losing opportunities from, laws that are too narrowly written. For example, imagine that a town enacts a zoning ordinance that gives certain rights (to build here or there) to “persons” and imposes obligations on them (not to build too high). The city council will usually define “persons” to include corporations. Or if it forgets to, a court will likely interpret “persons” that way. You don’t want someone to evade a zoning restriction simply by incorporating a business that he solely controls and then erecting a skyscraper in a residential neighborhood.

Hobby Lobby argues that corporations enjoy the right to free exercise of religion provided by a 1993 law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. RFRA protects “persons” from certain religiously burdensome laws and regulations, and Hobby Lobby argues that Congress meant to include corporations under that shield. Hobby Lobby’s opponents do not argue that RFRA doesn’t apply to corporations—they can’t, because it is undisputed that the statute applies to nonprofit corporations like the Catholic Church. The argument instead is that Congress did not intend RFRA to apply to for-profit, commercial corporations. Whoever is right, the answer turns on what Congress intended, not the metaphysics of personal identity.

Dahlia Lithwick says that “[c]onferring human attributes such as religious conviction and the capacity for embarrassment on a corporation is dangerous,” and that right-wingers harbor “the ambition of large, for-profit corporations to see themselves as people, with faith, convictions, and consciences.” But the law already treats corporations as capable of being reckless or negligent; of having intentions, beliefs, and states of mind. If it didn’t, then it would be impossible to hold a corporation guilty of committing a crime. Of course, judges don’t think that corporations possess mental states. To find a corporation guilty of a crime, they determine if relevant employees had the requisite bad intent, and then attribute it to the corporation as a whole. Far from turning persons into “things,” as Lithwick argues, these laws protect people from corporate wrongdoing and enable them to benefit from the goods and services that only corporations can provide.

What of bills that would deny women the right to abortion by defining one-celled human zygotes as “persons”? If the effect of such a definition is to deprive women of their constitutional rights, then a court should—and will—strike down the law. Legislatures cannot use legal fictions to change physical facts. They would have just as much success disenfranchising women by defining them as chimpanzees.

Speaking of which, Tommy will lose his case. The reason is not that it would be horrible or dehumanizing if a legislature chose to include animals in its definition of “persons” for the purpose of asking to be released from captivity. Tommy’s theory that private individuals should be permitted to come to his aid if state agencies fail to enforce animal welfare laws is not a crazy one. Nor would such a rule throw into doubt whether there is any relevant moral difference between human beings and animals, as some religious commentators fear. The Catholic Church held ecclesiastical trials of rats, mice, and other vermin for more than two centuries, apparently to punish them for destroying crops, yet no one thought that because mice were entitled to defense lawyers, they must also be allowed to own property or to serve as witnesses in the trials of their accomplices. The spotted owl, too, remains firmly on the animal side of the species barrier, despite its legal victory against the U.S. government.

The reason Tommy will lose is that the New York Legislature did not intend to encompass animals within the definition of “person” for filing a habeas petition. If lawmakers had meant to extend the writ of habeas in this way, when that had never been done before, they would have said so. If Hobby Lobby wins, on the other hand, it will be because courts think that Congress did intend to encompass for-profit corporations within the definition of “person” in providing for religious freedom. Whatever you make of these outcomes, you don’t have to worry that chimpanzees, craft stores, and zygotes will use them to conquer the planet and enslave humanity. The law does not turn something into a person by calling it one.

Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, is author of The Twilight of International Human Rights Law.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/12/personhood_for_corporations_and_chimpanzees_is_an_essential_legal_fiction.html

“Governor Walker, before he withdrew from the presidential competition, said he thought abortion should be forbidden even if the mother dies as a result, " Judge Richard Posner said to a lawyer for the state, in remarks first reported by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. "Is that kind of official Wisconsin policy?

“That perhaps is Governor Walker’s personal view, but it’s not a state policy,” Assistant Attorney General Brian Keenan replied. Keenan insisted requiring doctors to have admitting privileges was a reasonable precaution to aid women

“The admitting privileges would benefit the continuity of care for the woman when she goes to that hospital,” he said.

Posner said the fact that the law was intended to kick in one business day after it was passed made clear the authors' intentions. “That statute can’t be justified in terms of women’s health,” the judge said.

dad is interesting: lsd, sell kids

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner

omg, fluff/mkting

Eric Andrew Posner (born December 5, 1965)[1] is an American law professor, son of the United States Court of Appealsfor the Seventh Circuit judge Richard Posner.

Education

Posner attended Yale University (B.A., M.A. in philosophy, summa cum laude) and received his law degree from Harvard Law School (J.D., magna cum laude) in 1991. He clerked for Judge Stephen F. Williams of the D.C. Circuit.[2]

Career

Posner became Kirkland and Ellis Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School.[3] From 1998 to 2011, he was an editor of The Journal of Legal Studies.[4] He is the co-author of Terror in the Balance and The Executive Unbound.[5] He has published numerous articles on subjects including international law,[6] cost-benefit analysis,[7] and constitutional law.[8]

He has taught courses in international law, foreign relations law, and game theory and the law[when?].[9] His current[when?] research focuses on international law, foreign relations law, and international tribunals.[citation needed]

In 2005, he posted 147 words about the trial of the deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.[10]

In June 2013, Posner and Jameel Jaffer, fellow at the Open Society Foundations, participated in the New York Times's Room for Debate series.[5] Posner responded to concerns about expanded National Security Agency (NSA) programs that vacuum information about the private lives of American citizens. Those who oppose the surveillance claim that the collection and storing of unlimited metadata is a highly invasive form of surveillance of citizens' communications. Posner claimed that Americans obtain the services they want by disclosing private information to strangers such as "the market services of doctors, insurance companies, Internet service providers, employers, therapists and the rest, or the nonmarket services of the government like welfare and security." Posner argued that, since 2001 there has not been an incident in which the United States government used information "obtained for security purposes with "war-on-terror-related surveillance" technologies to "target a political opponent, dissenter or critic."[5] OCCUPY ^PHX

Select writings

Books

Articles

Newspaper columns

References

  1. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ date & year of birth, full name according to LCNAF CIP data
  2. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "Eric Posner: Education and Experience". http://www.law.uchicago.edu/. University of Chicago Law School. Retrieved 13 March 2015.
  3. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "Eric Posner Faculty Profile at University of Chicago". University of Chicago. Retrieved 26 February 2015.
  4. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "Tribute to Eric Posner". JSTOR. The Journal of Legal Studies. Retrieved 26 February 2015.
  5. ^ :{Jump up to::(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^a b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Posner#cite_ref-NYTPosner9June2013_5-1) c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Posner#cite_ref-NYTPosner9June2013_5-2) Eric Posner; Jameel Jaffer (9 June 2013). "Secrecy and Freedom". The New York Times. Retrieved 10 June 2013.
  6. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Goldsmith, Jack L.; Posner, Eric A. "The Limits of International Law". Oxford University Press (2006). Retrieved 13 March 2015.
  7. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Adler, Matthew D.; Posner, Eric D. "Cost-Benefit Analysis: Legal, Economic, and Philosophical Perspectives". University of Chicago Press (2001). Retrieved 13 March 2015.
  8. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ Posner, Eric. "The Constitutional Authority for Executive Orders on Immigration Is Clear". www.nytimes.com. New York Times. Retrieved 13 March 2015.
  9. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "The Perils of Global Legalism". Wbez.org. Retrieved June 4, 2010.[dead link]
  10. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:^ "The University of Chicago Law School Faculty Blog: Saddam's Trial". Uchicagolaw.typepad.com. November 30, 2005. Retrieved June 4, 2010.

External links

Authority control

Categories: 

www.law.uchicago.edu/.../posner-e

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

-

University of Chicago Law School:{:(style="border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;top:8.5px;position:absolute;margin-left:6px;margin-top:-3px;border-color:#aaaaaa;"):}:

:{:{Eric Posner:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: is Kirkland and Ellis Distinguished Service :{Professor:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: of :{Law:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: and Arthur and ... His books include The :{Twilight of International Human Rights:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: (Oxford, ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

Missing: author

www.law.uchicago.edu/.../publications

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

-

University of Chicago Law School:{:(style="border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;top:8.5px;position:absolute;margin-left:6px;margin-top:-3px;border-color:#aaaaaa;"):}:

:{Books (:{Author:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:). The :{Twilight of Human Rights Law:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: (Oxford :{University:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Press, 2014). [CU]. Economic Foundations of :{International Law:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: (Belknap Press of Harvard ...... Kirkland & Ellis Distinguished Service :{Professor:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: of :{Law:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: and Arthur and Esther ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

www.washingtonpost.com/.../human-rights-law-is-b...

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

-

The Washington Post:{:(style="border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;top:8.5px;position:absolute;margin-left:6px;margin-top:-3px;border-color:#aaaaaa;"):}:

:{Jan 14, 2015 - :{Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, is author of ':(style="font-weight:bold"):}::{The Twilight of International Human Rights Law:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:.' ... You might think our international human rights treaties would guide us to the answer.:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Posner

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

-

Wikipedia:{:(style="border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;top:8.5px;position:absolute;margin-left:6px;margin-top:-3px;border-color:#aaaaaa;"):}:

:{Institutions, :{University of Chicago Law School:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: ... :{Eric:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Andrew :{Posner:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: (born December 5, 1965) is an American :{law professor:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, son of the ... He is the co-:{author:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: of Terror in the Balance and The Executive Unbound. ... ISBN 0674066995; The :{Twilight of Human Rights Law:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: (Oxford University Press 2014) ISBN 978-0199313440 ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

www.thechicagocouncil.org/.../twiligh...

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

-

Chicago Council on Global Affairs:{:(style="border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;top:8.5px;position:absolute;margin-left:6px;margin-top:-3px;border-color:#aaaaaa;"):}:

:{Jan 20, 2015 - :{Professor:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Eric A. Posner, Kirkland & Ellis Distinguished Service:{Professor:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: of :{Law:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, :{University of Chicago Law School:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: ... focus, the existing body of:{international human rights law:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: has, according to :{Eric Posner:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, failed to markedly curb abuses. ... Posner is the :{author:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: of nine books and over one hundred articles ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

ukcatalogue.oup.com/.../9780199313440.do

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

-

Oxford University Press:{:(style="border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;top:8.5px;position:absolute;margin-left:6px;margin-top:-3px;border-color:#aaaaaa;"):}:

:{Nearly all countries have ratified nearly all the major :{human rights:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: treaties, and all ... Oxford University Press ... :{Eric Posner:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, :{Professor:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: of :{Law:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, :{University of Chicago:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: ... Description, :{Author:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: Information, Reviews, Table of Contents ... :{law:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:. In :{International Human Rights:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, acclaimed legal scholar :{Eric Posner:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: seeks to explain a ...:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

www.wsj.com/.../book-review-the-twilight-of-hu...

:{:(style="border-color:#006621;;border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;margin-left:3px;top:8.5px;margin-top:-4px;position:absolute;left:0px"):}:

-

The Wall Street Journal:{:(style="border-style:solid;border-width:4px 4px 0px;width:0px;height:0px;top:8.5px;position:absolute;margin-left:6px;margin-top:-3px;border-color:#aaaaaa;"):}:

:{Dec 16, 2014 - In “The :{Twilight of Human Rights Law:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:,” :{Eric:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: A. :{Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:, sets himself two tasks. The first is to trace unsentimentally the history of the :{international:(style="font-weight:bold"):}: treaties .... It sounds as if the :{author:(style="font-weight:bold"):}:wishes to control people's thoughts and actions, so I will pass on this book.:(style="word-wrap:break-word"):}:

==huh?

PresenTense Group, as well as editor and publisher of PresenTense Magazine. He was an informant for Daniel Pipes's Campus Watch database on "leftists professors".**Ariel Beery** is the co-founder and director of the

Junaid Alam reports[1]:

Another complaining student who was a lead organizer for the film, Ariel Beery, boasts an impressive resume: he served as a spokesman for the Israeli military, is the head of the on-campus Zionist group, and is also an agent and informer for Daniel Pipes' notorious CampusWatch.org website, where students are encouraged to "report" their professors' political views if they are deemed insufficiently servile to the conservative party line.

But this is not all. None of the targeted professors were even allowed a chance to rebut the charges on the film. The reason for this, according to David Project head Ralph Avi Goldwasser, in comments given to the Israeli daily The Jerusalem Post, is that "the film wasn't meant to be a documentary; it was merely an effort to collect students' testimony about classroom incidents." Unsurprisingly, the David Project is simply being dishonest (again), since it turns out that they deliberately ignored the voices of Jewish and non-Jewish students who found such "incidents" to be fabricated and had no problems with the targeted professors.Eric Posner, who describes himself as "a Jew, an Israeli, a Jerusalemite, and an American," reports that "I was approached last year by Ariel Beery who wanted to hear my opinion about MEALAC and Massad, whose class I was enrolled in at the time. When I expressed my profound appreciation for Massad's critical approach and the multiplicity of perspectives that he offers in his classroom, Beery told me that he wouldn't be calling me back for a taped interview."

==**Jack Landman Goldsmith**, aconservative lawyer and a professor since 2004 at Harvard Law School,[1] is the former head of the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel and a "vocal critic of the Administration's political tactics ... following the recent publication of his book which details his attempts to re-write legal opinions that gave the Administration extraordinary latitude in domestic surveillance, torture and treatment of captives in Afghanistan and Iraq."[2]

Vice President Dick Cheney "blocked [Goldsmith's] promotion ... in retaliation for his role in a review of a government surveillance program that led to the [May 10, 2004,] Intensive Care Unit Showdown,[3] where then White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andrew Card attempted to persuade a post-op John Ashcroft to give legal cover to the government's secret domestic spying program, according to written answers provided to Congress by former Deputy Attorney General James Comey."[4]

Goldsmith resigned June 17, 2004, with an effective date of July 30, 2004, from the Office of Counsel[5] and was replaced in 2005 by Steven G. Bradbury.

Goldsmith has been a Visiting Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute since 2004 after leaving the Bush administration.[6]

Bush Administration War on Terror Memos

ProPublica notes that "the Bush administration’s "war on terror" - including its controversial policies on detentions, interrogations and warrantless wiretapping - were all underpinned by legal memoranda. While some of those memos have been released ... the former administration chose to keep many others secret, citing security and confidentiality concerns. The decision to release them now lies with President Obama. To help inform the debate - and inject an extra dose of accountability - we’re posting a list of the relevant memos, both public and secret." [1]

Memo authors include John C. Yoo, Steven G. Bradbury, Jay Bybee, James B. Comey, Robert J. Delahunty, Jack Goldsmith, James Ho, Daniel Levin, Patrick Philbin, legal architects (and some internal critics) of the Bush Administration's use of torture and detention policies now being reversed or reviewed by the Obama Administration.

Articles by Jack Goldsmith

Published works by Jack Goldsmith

Professional experience / education

The following information about Goldsmith's professional experience and education comes from his AEI profile.[6]

Resources

Related SourceWatch articles

References

  1. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ "Protect rule of law when fighting terrorism, Goldsmith says in testimony," Harvard University News, October 2, 2007.
  2. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ "Former Justice Insider, Turned Unlikely Civil Lib Hero, Testifies in Congress," Threat Level Blog/WIRED, October 2, 2007.
  3. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Dahlia Lithwick, "Pulling the Plug. Alberto Gonzales browbeats the critically ill," Slate, May 15, 2007.
  4. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Ryan Singel, "Cheney Blocked Promotion of Lawyer Who Questioned Wiretapping Program," Threat Level Blog/WIRED, June 7, 2007.
  5. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ News Release: "Assistant Attorney General Jack Goldsmith to Step Down," U.S. Department of Justice, June 17, 2004.
  6. ↑ ^Jump ^up to:6.0 6.1 Scholar: Jack Landman Goldsmith, American Enterprise Institute, accessed October 5, 2007.
  7. :{Jump up:(style="top:-99999px;clip:rect(1px 1px 1px 1px);overflow:hidden;position:absolute !important;padding:0px !important;border:0px !important;height:1px !important;width:1px !important;-webkit-user-select:none"):}:↑ Jack L. Goldsmith, Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School.

External articles

2004
2006
2007
2008
2009

External resources

Categories: 

===