testifying tomorrow
The House Judiciary Committee hasn't posted my testimony yet, so I've put it on SSRN.
Related Posts (on one page):
free hit counter
My first TNR shout-out
Here, if only as a block quote of the earlier inaccurate Rosen piece. Twenty years ago, my New Republic subscription had me aspiring to be one of the people with bylines in the magazine. Of course, since then, TNR has zigged left, and I've zagged right as I've gotten more educated and well-read, so that precise instantiation of the aspiration isn't going to happen, but it has a lot to do with the pay cut I've taken.
punditry roundup
- My reputation is apparently building critical mass, as I have gotten to the point where I'm quoted in the New York Times Magazine over two-year-old interviews without being reinterviewed, though Rosen has met me multiple times over the last couple of years and could easily have picked up the phone. But it's good to hear a journalist say "Frank's prediction was vindicated," though Rosen's article as a whole ignores the huge resources the litigation lobby brings to bear in Supreme Court cases and elsewhere.
- For those who thought my criticism of Obama's tax plan demonstrated Hillary Clinton bias, perhaps they'll be happier with my being quoted unfavorably comparing her anti-foreclosure plan to Obama's.
- I'm also quoted in the Roanoke Times about a local product-liability case.
in today's Washington Post, A13
Letter:
Dana Milbank's Feb. 28 column on Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker operates on the premise that the winner of any Supreme Court argument should be whoever can best appeal to the justices' sympathies regardless of the merits of the case. Such an approach is more appropriate for coverage of television game shows than the law.
The Post would do better to treat its readers like grownups and have its Supreme Court reporting done by journalists who don't "yawn" at questions about the appropriateness of jury instructions.
-- Theodore H. Frank
Washington
The writer is director of the American Enterprise Institute's Legal Center for the Public Interest.
Dana Milbank's Feb. 28 column on Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker operates on the premise that the winner of any Supreme Court argument should be whoever can best appeal to the justices' sympathies regardless of the merits of the case. Such an approach is more appropriate for coverage of television game shows than the law.
The Post would do better to treat its readers like grownups and have its Supreme Court reporting done by journalists who don't "yawn" at questions about the appropriateness of jury instructions.
-- Theodore H. Frank
Washington
The writer is director of the American Enterprise Institute's Legal Center for the Public Interest.
Related Posts (on one page):
- in today's Washington Post, A13
- Wherein the Christian Science Monitor calls me a "legal expert"