A data-driven look at the devastating efficacy of a far-right judge-education program


#1

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/10/18/law-and-econ-and-plutocracy.html


#2

Well, that’s horrifying.


#3

The Law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor, to sleep under the bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. – Anatole France


#4

So the right has had a program like ALEC (all-expense paid junkets where the lower ranks are propagandized and groomed) for the judicial branch, and they’ve been doing this for decades (shortly after the Powell memo was written at a guess)? And like ALEC it’s had a huge impact in driving the country right? I had no idea. Of course it makes sense, the return on investment for the oligarchs is huge. Thanks for the post.


#5

The GOP’s effectively one-party state has no room for an independent judiciary.


#6

Contributions on behalf of the Law & Economics Center may be made by check or online to the George Mason University Foundation, Inc., a 501©(3) corporation established to support the activities of George Mason University.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/George_Mason_University

Seemed to have hit a sore spot:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-trashing-of-george-mason-university-1526079531

Ah, them.


#7

This just highlights the extent to which the American judicial system is replacing the adversary system of law with one that depends on judges’ priors. The best example I know of is antitrust law, where the laws passed by Congress are effectively overruled without significant review (no Dolbert standard required) on the grounds of judges talking to judges and replacing “competition” with some variant of “as long as consumer prices aren’t raised, it must be OK.”

The fact that monopsony has kept labor returns flat for forty years? Who cares?


#8

The Heritage Foundation has a “training program” for law clerks.

If accepted into the Heritage Foundation's program, funded by unnamed donors, the law clerks pledge not to disclose the teaching materials used, or to use the training to act contrary to the group's mission. https://t.co/5JcDfhfnVW pic.twitter.com/CxLLKugjIy

— The New York Times (@nytimes) October 18, 2018

#9

How does any organisation get to be able to run these training sessions? Really. It smacks of corruption to me.
And would a more liberal, humanist organisation get to run seminars that influenced judges the other way? (Not holding my breath.)


#11

“the racial disparity in sentencing between black and white defendants is larger for Manne-trained judges than their colleagues. In addition, the gender disparity in sentencing between make and female defendants is larger for Manne-trained judges than their colleagues.”

…aaaand we’re DONE. If only Democrats picked on dramatic anecdotes the way Republicans do, that is.

In a mediasphere where Terry Albury’s concerns about racism in the FBI are 2% of a story about his disclosures, and most of it is about how wrong he was to reveal any classified information, (since any such disclosure is always, always “putting America at risk”), where a bunch of frightened poor people travelling together for protection against Mexican criminal gangs become an invading army…

…how hard would it be to sell a lot of eyeballs to advertisers with stories about Classes in Racism and Classes in Sexism

But no. I bet Boingboing is the only place I even read this story.


#12

Right? I thought the U.S. stamped out corruption like, 40 years ago? That’s Indonesia and, um, Columbia. Yeah, Columbia. Everything’s been on the up n up here for a pretty long time now, fer sure.

/s


#13

" In addition, the gender disparity in sentencing between make and female defendants is larger for Manne-trained judges than their colleagues."

Interesting comment. Does that mean that women get off even more lightly than men? or that women get sentenced even more harshly than men? Some context would have been helpful.


#14

If it pairs with the recent reporting on in-prison disciplinary actions, the disparity would be harsher sentences for female defendants.


#15

Well that was disappointing click-bait. No data for the data-driven, no argument that was anything other than allegations without any evidence, and therefore this is - CRAP.

How about we return to the land of reality where you make an accusation, back it with facts, and then discuss solutions. You have made an accusation, given no facts, and don’t give a fig about a solution - you’re just here to make noise.


#16

Um, reading comprehension fail?

Did you fail to click through to the original article, which has the research paper as the first link?

We can’t help you if you’ve decided reading involves reading summaries only, and that the actual linked content is not worth your time.


#17

Disappointed, even…


#25

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.