Miers's op-ed

[Frank Cross]

For the record, I know a leading philosopher of jurisprudence, and he 
thinks Posner is vastly better than Dworkin.

At 09:01 AM 10/6/2005, Sean Wilson wrote:
>... well I would grant you this: legal culture does value encyclopedic 
>minds. And I suppose by my assertion I have shown a bias of some sort. I 
>do think that "breakthrough-thinking" is what defines philosophic genious 
>(and I am surely not alone in that assertion). So I guess I should not 
>have demeaned those who revere one kind of intellectualism over another. 
>(Remember, I'm a lawyer; I know well the cultures of law school versus 
>academica). Let me reform the proposition: Posner is simply not one of the 
>greatest legal philosophers of the 20th century, though he may be one its 
>most popular writers. I read the guy plenty. I get so irritated with how 
>he goes about his method of "proof." His treatment of Dworkin is 
>ridiculous. I simply don't think that serious scholars in philosophy of 
>law regard him as anything other than an intelligent judge and a 
>high-profile spokesperson for views birthed by others.
>
>Frank Cross <crossf at mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>I don't think it's funny at all.
>I think that very few have a comprehensive understanding of other people's 
>ideas.  Certainly Dworkin doesn't.  I'd say a comprehensive understanding 
>of other people's ideas is about the best we can hope for.  Really new 
>creative ideas are pretty rare today and they may well be bad ideas.  I 
>think it makes much more sense to stand on the shoulders of the past
>
>
>At 08:34 AM 10/6/2005, Sean Wilson wrote:
>>... only to lawyers and law school professors (if that). He in no way 
>>broke original ground on any philosophical position he advanced. His 
>>works show nothing other than an ability to understand the ideas of other 
>>great thinkers (an important trait, but not the issue). Pragmatism was 
>>around long before Posner, although one must admit he is a capable 
>>champion of it. To be fair, the sole scholar who made the greatest 
>>intellectual contribution to the theory of law in the 20th century was 
>>Ronald Dworkin. Posner's works lack serious philosophic rigor, as is 
>>usually the case with pragmatic "philosophers," who tend as a matter of 
>>doctrine to reject philosophy's method. Posner's works read like a 
>>literary narrative involving history and op-ed mixed with economics. It's 
>>a nice read, but it is not philosophically original or novel. It is so 
>>funny that lawyers think that scholars who show comprehensive 
>>understanding of other people's ideas are the! great thinkers.
>>
>>Scott Gerber <s-gerber at onu.edu> wrote:
>>To take Ilya's point to its logical limit, if we want to insist that only
>>the very best candidate be appointed to the Supreme Court, and there's
>>nothing wrong with so insisting, the Senate should refuse to confirm anyone
>>but Richard Posner, who William Brennan called one of the two geniuses he
>>had ever met (the other was William O. Douglas, but he's dead). Posner is
>>the most important American legal theorist since Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
>>
>>__________________________________________________
>>Do You Yahoo!?
>>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
>>http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>**********************************************************
>
>Frank Cross
>McCombs School of Business
>The University of Texas at Austin
>1 University Station B6000
>Austin, TX 78712-1178
>
>
>Yahoo! for Good
><http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/>Click here to donate to the 
>Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

**********************************************************

Frank Cross
McCombs School of Business
The University of Texas at Austin
1 University Station B6000
Austin, TX 78712-1178
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20051006/016d7f4e/attachment.html