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.

Comments

[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.