Ted Frank has the latest on Lott's appeal of the dismissal of his case:
Lott is now claiming that the case should have been decided under the allegedly more friendly Virginia libel law than the Illinois law under which his claim fails, but that is generally an argument for (at best) a claim of legal malpractice, rather than for a do-over for an expressly waived argument in federal court. Lott has posted the briefs; David Glenn blogs about the 2-year mark in the case. Not that I think Lott has a valid legal malpractice claim, either, unless his attorneys told him he had a good shot at winning more than he would spend in legal fees.
More like this
One of the standard arguments we hear from the Hate the ACLU crowd is that the ACLU is that they are "getting rich on taxpayer money" because, in some cases, Federal law allows plaintiffs who sue government agencies successfully to recover their legal fees. It's an argument based primarily on…
More interesting analysis of Lott's lawsuit from Ted Frank. First, after looking at the examples of the use of "replicate" he concludes:
I appear to have been too generous to Lott's complaint when I first criticized it.
Then Ben Zycher, who once mounted a defence of Lott consisting of nothing…
Over at the Panda's Thumb, there's a troll by the name of Larry Fafarman who has been posting under about 50 different names, using proxies to evade a ban. He's apparently posting under the name J Simes now and he's trying, both valiantly and absurdly, to defend the Manzari and Cooper article and…
If the Gull Lake teachers do file a lawsuit claiming that it is a violation of their rights if they are not allowed to teach creationist or other anti-evolution material in their science classes, there are three primary legal precedents for such a suit. All of them have found against the teacher's…
Frank referred to Lott's interesting legal research. I refereed a Lott-Frank Zimring debate once, & was left w/ the impression that Lott starts w/ a conclusion and works backwards. Expected in a politician, not so much in legal studies.
Technically true then: interesting, just not valid or good.
Lott is not merely interesting; he is positively fascinating.
I am amazed to this day at the statistical "analysis" he got away with when the US Civil Rights Commission investigated the 2000 elections in Florida. See how he "helped" commissioner Thernstrom show that race was not a factor. Don't look just at race by county, quoth Lott, be more sophisticated and look at the 2nd order - - change in racial makeup. Thus a county that is 90% black is exactly the same as a county that is 90% white, as long as neither changes.
Just like driving at 10 MPH is the same as driving at 90 MPH as long as you don't accelerate.
Wow.
The report is at www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report .
Thernstroms dissent is at www.thernstrom.com .