« Closing the Xbox |
| The One Percent Doctrine »
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.
Posted at 10:55 AM | Permalink
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):
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
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 |
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.
Kimball Corson |
June 23, 2006 at 02:32 PM
bork v. mikva
douglas ginsburg v. sunstein
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.
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
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.
June 26, 2006 at 09:05 PM
Here's a suggestion: Professor Stone could try not being wrong for a change.
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.
Kit Stolz |
June 27, 2006 at 10:53 AM
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.
June 28, 2006 at 12:49 PM
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
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.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.
(URLs automatically linked.)
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address