-Caveat Lector- February 1, 2001 Court Battle for Presidency Rages On in Legal Circles <http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/01/politics/01LEGA.html?ex=982052224&ei=1&en=a24b54424cd37dd5> By WILLIAM GLABERSON After the seemingly interminable election battle, most people have gone on with their lives. But not in the legal world. Among lawyers, judges, law students and law professors, it is almost as if the frenzy of rulings and appeals has not ended. On the Internet, in legal conferences, scholarly journals, trade newspapers, law school classes and pretty much anywhere lawyers get together, the election battle is still Topic A. "There's a beehive of activity in the legal world" related to the election, said Howard A. Gillman, an associate professor of political science at the University of Southern California who is writing a book about the election and its aftermath. "I haven't seen anything quite like it," Mr. Gillman said. Immediately after the colossal legal fight, lawyers and scholars seemed as worn out as everyone else. But they are getting a hurricane- force second wind of second-guessing, re-examinations and attacks. Liberal and conservative legal experts are beginning a vituperative exchange of manifestos and articles. Bar associations and law schools are holding forums to sort through the issues. In record time, three law professors from Columbia, Stanford and New York Universities produced a textbook on the legal war over the election, "When Elections Go Bad: The Law of Democracy and the Presidential Election of 2000." It was ready even before President Bush was inaugurated, and its publisher, Foundation Press, said the book was already in use at law schools at Harvard, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Georgetown and other universities. And for true fans of the 2000 election, lawyers around the country recently received an offer from a Washington legal printing company to "own a piece of history!" For $385, they could buy their very own copy ("in an attractive foil-stamped display case") of the legal briefs in the cases that decided the election. At the country's law schools, some professors say, the ferment has the flavor of the teach-ins of the Vietnam War era, when professors spurred their students to political action. More than 660 law professors signed a statement comparing the majority of the Supreme Court justices to propagandists who suppressed the facts and acted as "political proponents for candidate Bush, not as judges." The law professors' statement was published as an advertisement in The New York Times on Jan. 13. Margaret Jane Radin, a Stanford law professor who helped organize the group, said the professors hoped to keep reminding the public of what they saw as flaws in President Bush's path to the White House. "I know the administration can behave as if it is legitimate," Professor Radin said, "but that doesn't make it so." Interviews with conservative law professors showed that such sentiments were not unanimous. Charles Fried, a Harvard law professor who was solicitor general in the Reagan administration, said the law professors' statement was a "preposterous" declaration by people "in the grip of partisan excitement." "The only thing that is beyond the pale," Professor Fried said, "is this kind of ridiculous rhetoric about the court disgracing itself." Scholarly journals are getting into the fray, too. This spring's issue of the Supreme Court Review, a journal about the court's rulings, will include an article that has already been circulated at some law schools by a conservative federal appeals judge, Richard A. Posner. His article said the justices in the Supreme Court minority who dissented from the ruling that led to Mr. Bush's becoming president were guilty of "what is called fouling one's own nest." By accusing the majority of undermining confidence in the courts, Judge Posner wrote, the minority undermined confidence themselves. The dissenting justices engaged in "self-fulfilling prophecy," he wrote. Liberal legal scholars are not shy about expressing tart sentiments either. This month, The American Prospect is publishing an article by a liberal Yale law professor, Bruce Ackerman. Professor Ackerman said the Supreme Court majority "betrayed the nation's trust," and he argued that the Senate should refuse to approve any Supreme Court nominees by President Bush even if that meant leaving seats vacant throughout the Bush presidency. The Internet has been similarly alive. This week the buzz centered on a proposal for a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College. The draft, by Bryan H. Wildenthal, an associate professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, and posted in an electronic discussion group for constitutional law professors, attracted special attention because it included unusual suggestions, including moving Election Day to the summer. "The weather would be better," Professor Wildenthal explained. One of Mr. Wildenthal's electronic correspondents, Gregory C. Sisk, said proposals like Mr. Wildenthal's and comments about the election from law professors around the country were intellectually stimulating to consider. But Professor Sisk, who teaches constitutional law at Drake University in Des Moines, said some of the proposals coming out of the discussion may not be practical. "The proposal to abolish the Electoral College," he said, "is just a nonstarter. It has no chance." For some law students who find themselves in courses that focus on the election battle, law school has never been so much fun. In more typical classes they study "a lot of those old cases" that sometimes are not riveting, said Timothy C. Tozer, a third-year student at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington. But, Mr. Tozer said, in Professor Roy A. Schotland's seminar on election law this semester, the class discussions about Florida have been entertainingly heated. Mr. Tozer, a Democrat, said much of the energy in the class came from Democrats who were "still upset and livid about this case." "The people who are more openly Republican," Mr. Tozer said, "are quieter." <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
