H2H: The End of the Debate (For Now)
With final posts yesterday, our first Head to Head: Stone v. Posner came to a close. Please let us know if you have comments on the format or suggestions for future debate topics or participants.
Home | Previous Post: Closing the Xbox | Next Post: The One Percent Doctrine
June 23, 2006
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
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
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.
Subscribe
Comments Policy
Recent Comments
- Stephen Schweizer on Ambiguity in Legal Interpretation: Frank Easterbrook's reaction
- Stephen Schweizer on Apple v. Samsung: What Are Patents Good For?
- Kayj on The 14th Amendment Meets the Bankruptcy Code
- Sherman on Citizens United: A defense
- C.j. Wright on Student Blogger - Winter WIP: Stone's Ten Things We've Learned About Free Speech
- DWAnderson1 on Politics, Copyright and the First-Amendment Commons
- Giovanni Di Giuseppe on Remembering Judge Terence Evans
- Ettore Colella on Remembering Judge Terence Evans
- John McDonald on Student Blogger - Winter WIP: Douglas Baird Appraises Ponzi's Legacy
- D on Remembering Judge Terence Evans
Recent Posts
- Apple v. Samsung: What Are Patents Good For? by Randy Picker
- Politics, Copyright and the First-Amendment Commons by Randy Picker
- Video: Law School Faculty on United States v. Jones by UChicagoLaw
- Remembering Judge Terence Evans by Steve Sanders
- The 14th Amendment Meets the Bankruptcy Code by Randy Picker
- Is FICO-Scoring Patients Therapeutic? by Lior Strahilevitz
- Obama and same-sex marriage: the lawyerly straddle continues by Steve Sanders
- The Rage Over Conditional Scholarships by saul levmore
- Student Blogger - What Are You Hiding in that Statute?: Canvassing Federal Privacy Law by Bob O'Leary
- Student Blogger - Let's Work Together: Coordination Among Government Agencies by Bob O'Leary
Categories
- Abebe, Daniel
- Audio/Video
- Baird, Douglas
- Ben-Shahar, Omri
- Bradford, Anu
- Buss, Emily
- Case, Mary Anne
- Clinical Programs
- Cox, Adam
- Currie, David
- Davis, Alicia
- Debate
- Dixon, Rosalind
- Easterbrook, Frank
- Epstein, Richard
- Faculty Posts
- Fennell, Lee
- Friends of Chicago
- Futterman, Craig
- Gersen, Jacob
- Ginsburg, Tom
- Guest Bloggers
- Harcourt, Bernard
- Henderson, M. Todd
- Heyrman, Mark
- Huq, Aziz
- LaCroix, Alison
- Leiter, Brian
- Leslie, Jeff
- Levmore, Saul
- Live Blog
- Malani, Anup
- Masur, Jonathan
- McAdams, Richard
- Miles, Thomas
- Nussbaum, Martha
- Picker, Randy
- Porat, Ariel
- Posner, Eric
- Posner, Richard
- Samaha, Adam
- Sanders, Steve
- Schill, Michael
- Siegler, Alison
- Stone, Geoffrey
- Stone, Randolph
- Strahilevitz, Lior
- Strauss, David
- Student Bloggers
- Suk, Julie
- Weisbach, David
- Woltjen, Maria
- Wood, Diane
The University of Chicago Law School | 1111 East 60th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637 | 773.702.9494
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.
Posted by: Kimball Corson | June 23, 2006 at 12:00 PM
Look at the comparative number and length of responses between poscasts and written presentations. The vote is already in.
Posted by: Kimball Corson | June 23, 2006 at 02:32 PM
bork v. mikva
douglas ginsburg v. sunstein
Posted by: anon | June 24, 2006 at 12:56 PM
On reflection, a bit more time between posts in a debate would allow more intervening time for comments and probably would elicit more.
Posted by: Kimball Corson | June 24, 2006 at 02:22 PM
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
Posted by: Paul Berch | June 25, 2006 at 11:43 AM
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.
Posted by: ajtall | June 26, 2006 at 09:05 PM
Here's a suggestion: Professor Stone could try not being wrong for a change.
Posted by: When I Say Proof Of Contradiction, I Mean Proof Of Contradiction | June 26, 2006 at 11:00 PM
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.
Posted by: Kit Stolz | June 27, 2006 at 10:53 AM
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.
Posted by: David | June 28, 2006 at 12:49 PM