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
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…
Gribbit is proving to be the political equivalent of Old Faithful - every 8 minutes or so, you can be assured that he's going to spew some utter nonsense into the air. His latest concerns HR 2679, the bill that would eliminate legal fee reimbursement for establishment clause cases. In it, he…
Larry Fafarman has posted a long comment on a thread below and I'm moving it up here to answer it because it raises a really important point on this trumped up controversy over why the Dover school board didn't rescind the ID policy on Dec. 5, 2005 at the first meeting they were sworn in at. He…
I'm sure some of you remember the brouhaha a few weeks ago over the accusation made by Seth Cooper, Joe Manzari and Michael Francisco that the new Dover school board, voted into office in November, intentionally delayed rescinding the policy because they were in collusion with the ACLU. Well now…
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 .