The third and final part of my Los Angeles Times debate with UC Irvine Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky is now available here.
In this installment, we considered the question of whether "Obama's runaway victory last November give him a strong mandate to structure the Supreme Court as he likes." Since we actually don't disagree that much over the "mandate" issue, I used part of my allotted space to try to sum up the key points of dispute from our earlier exchanges over Sotomayor and judicial empathy.
I am grateful to the Times for organizing this discussion and to Dean Chemerinsky for his insightful contributions to it.
The entire series of posts is available here.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Supreme Court to Hear Oral Argument in Alvarez v. Smith - A Key Property Rights Case:
- Eduardo Penalver's Defense of Sotomayor's Didden decision:
- What the Didden Case Tells Us About Sotomayor's Attitude Towards Property Rights:...
- Another Critic of Judge Sotomayor's "Wise Latina" Sentence:
- My LA Times Debate with Erwin Chemerinsky, Part 3:
- Sotomayor May be Wrong About Race, but She is No Racist:...
- The Sotomayor Pick:
- Obama Chooses Sonia Sotomayor.
- Supreme Court to Hear Potentially Important Property Rights Case: