« Closing the Xbox | Main | The One Percent Doctrine »

June 23, 2006

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c031153ef00d834d01b3069e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference H2H: The End of the Debate (For Now):

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Kimball Corson

Great format. Much, much better than a podcasting. We can chime in along the way and read and reread what is being said, rather than hearing it once in passing.

Kimball Corson

Look at the comparative number and length of responses between poscasts and written presentations. The vote is already in.

anon

bork v. mikva
douglas ginsburg v. sunstein

Kimball Corson

On reflection, a bit more time between posts in a debate would allow more intervening time for comments and probably would elicit more.

Paul Berch

Having just discovered this blog, let me just express my appreciation for this quality discussion. This format is far better than a podcast for those of us who wish to think, learn and think some more.
Paul Berch JD '70

ajtall

I prefer both. Podcasts, with good audio, are awesome. I can listen at any time and on the road. The last Posner-Stone podcast was of poor quality however.

When I Say Proof Of Contradiction, I Mean Proof Of Contradiction

Here's a suggestion: Professor Stone could try not being wrong for a change.

Kit Stolz

To change the subject for one minute: Today the LATimes runs a top-right front-page column that (if I read between its lines correctly) suggests the Supremes will rule that the Federal government has the obligation to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Here's the story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-scotus27jun27,1,7958938.story?coll=la-headlines-nation)

As an enviro type greatly concerned about climate change, I'd love to hear what experts (such as yourselves) think about this forecast. This sounds like it potentially could be huge news.

David

Kit--

While I am no Supreme Court expert, I would not read so much into a mere grant of certiorari. As the LA Times article notes, cert is granted if four justices vote to grant it and Cert could have been granted for any number of reasons. Let's wait to see what the decision is.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.