the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search

Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

lr_jkr9_15_08constific.jpg

ad-logo5.jpg

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

Law-Rev-Forum-2.jpg

law-rev-contents2.jpg

Law-Prof-Blog-Census.jpg

Categories

Accounting
Administrative Announcements
Administrative Law
Admiralty
Advertising
Agricultural Law
Anonymity
Antitrust
Architecture
Articles and Books
Bankruptcy
Behavioral Law and Economics
Bioethics
Blogging
Book Reviews
Capital Punishment
Civil Procedure
Civil Rights
Conferences
Constitutional Law
Consumer Protection Law
Contract Law & Beyond
Corporate Finance
Corporate Law
Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Culture
Current Events
Cyberlaw
DRM
Economic Analysis of Law
Education
Empirical Analysis of Law
Employment Law
Environmental Law
Estates and Trusts
Evidence Law
Family Law
Feminism and Gender
First Amendment
Food
Google & Search Engines
Health Law
History of Law
Humor
Immigration
Insurance Law
Intellectual Property
International & Comparative Law
Interviews
Jurisprudence
Law and Humanities
Law and Inequality
Law and Psychology
Law Practice
Law Professor Blogger Census
Law Rev (Boston College)
Law Rev (Boston University)
Law Rev (California)
Law Rev (Chicago)
Law Rev (Columbia)
Law Rev (Cornell)
Law Rev (Duke)
Law Rev (Emory)
Law Rev (Fordham)
Law Rev (Georgetown)
Law Rev (GW)
Law Rev (Harvard)
Law Rev (Illinois)
Law Rev (Indiana)
Law Rev (Iowa)
Law Rev (Michigan)
Law Rev (Minnesota)
Law Rev (Northwestern)
Law Rev (Notre Dame)
Law Rev (NYU)
Law Rev (Penn)
Law Rev (S Cal)
Law Rev (Stanford)
Law Rev (Texas)
Law Rev (UCLA)
Law Rev (Vanderbilt)
Law Rev (Virginia)
Law Rev (Wash U)
Law Rev (Wm & Mary)
Law Rev (Yale)
Law Rev Contents
Law Rev Forum
Law School
Law School (Hiring & Laterals)
Law School (Law Reviews)
Law School (Rankings)
Law School (Scholarship)
Law School (Teaching)
Law Student Discussions
Law Talk
Legal Ethics
Legal Theory
Media Law
Movies & Television
Philosophy of Social Science
Politics
Privacy
Privacy (Consumer Privacy)
Privacy (Electronic Surveillance)
Privacy (Gossip & Shaming)
Privacy (ID Theft)
Privacy (Law Enforcement)
Privacy (Medical)
Privacy (National Security)
Property Law
Race
Religion
Reparations
Science Fiction
Second Amendment
Securities
Securities Regulation
Social Network Websites
Sociology of Law
Supreme Court
Tax
Teaching
Technology
Tort Law
Web 2.0
Weird
Wiki
Wills, Trusts, and Estates

Archives

November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005

 

« The Yale Law Journal's Pocket Part | Main | BlackProf Blog »

October 19, 2005

Paging the Department of Bogus Quotes . . . there's a Mr. Zywicki here to see you

posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, Todd Zywicki discusses Oregon's Measure 37, criticizing a "direct quote" from an alleged Measure opponent:

On Friday, a judge overturned the measure as unconstitutional under Oregon's state constitution. Tom quotes one of the lawyers who brought the action to overturn the law:

I will put a couple of enlightened attorneys up against a million Oregonians any day, since the masses do not make right in this Republic, no matter how many you stack up against the wall!!

Frankly, I'm surprised at Zywicki's unreserved use of a "direct quote" that looks very suspicious on the surface, and that gets no better upon investigation.

UPDATE: I have received new information about the source of the quotation in question. At least some of my assumptions were factually incorrect, and I will post an updated entry shortly. See here for my updated entry.

.

Posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger at October 19, 2005 02:40 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/74.

Comments

Kaimi: It seems to me that your argument boils down to the claim that when conservative quote stupid things that liberals say as evidence of how stupid liberals are one ought not to believe them.

However, sometimes it is the case that liberals simply say stupid things.

Posted by: Nate Oman at October 19, 2005 05:56 PM


It makes sense to view the quotation with some skepticism, but I fail to see what Prof. Z has done wrong here. He pointed readers on a track to observe all of the data you point to thereby allowing them to make up their own minds.

Posted by: John Jenkins at October 19, 2005 06:50 PM


I am friends with a lot of prominent liberal lawyers. I've heard some very competent liberal lawyers make comments similar to the one you ridicule as "[a] good example of how liberals talk in libertarian fantasyland." In any event, I would take a couple good civil rights lawyers over a million people any day, too. After all, isn't that what any challenge to a democratically-enacted law amounts to? Millions of voters say one thing; a team of smart lawyers tells the court to say another thing.

Anyhow, the point of your post is solid, namely that the quote is unreliable. It's when you try making another claim (i.e., that liberals don't say such things) that you fail. Competent liberals and conservatives all sometimes say stupid and elitist things. To the extent you argue otherwise, your argument fails.

Posted by: Mike at October 19, 2005 07:25 PM


Mike: it seems to me that judicial review doesn't amount to taking the opinion of smart lawyers over the masses on any day, but rather on rare or extraordinary days. It is a very important distinction.

Posted by: Nate Oman at October 19, 2005 07:33 PM


Nate: Good point. Do you have any idea how often challenges brought by good lawyers (rather than pro se litigants) succeed in getting a ballot initiatives struck down? I don't know, so that's an actual question, and not a "question" with an argument smuggled in it.

That'd give us the answer to the question whether two smart lawyers are good on "any day" or a "rare or extraordinay day." In the meantime, I amend my response: I'd take the smart lawyers on "some day."

Posted by: Mike at October 19, 2005 07:44 PM


M. Kaimipono D. Wenger:


I am Tom Blumer at BizzyBlog. My exact use of the quote in question was as follows at the 2nd last para of this post:


http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=671


Land-use tyrants aren’t even trying to mask their outlook any more. According to the Measure 37 web site (scroll to near the bottom of page), one lawyer attempting to overturn the law was quoted as saying: “I will put a couple of enlightened attorneys up against a million Oregonians any day, since the masses do not make right in this Republic, no matter how many you stack up against the wall!!”


I left it to the reader, if they wished to question whether the quote was accurate based on its source.


I understand that Todd has since confirmed it, since your objection in this post is to him. I just confirmed it too, and have a copy of the e-mail Ron Myers at OIA/Measure 37 sent to Todd, which contains the name, address, phone number, e-mail addy, and web site of the person who sent the e-mail.


I suppose you're free to still question the quote's veracity, and to think that they have made it all up. But I believe you would be very mistaken to do so, and that you bear the burden of disproving it. Don't blame Todd or myself for relaying it, and before you question an attributed quote's veracity, maybe YOU should do the investigating first.


Cheers,


Tom Blumer
BizzyBlog.com

Posted by: Tom Blumer at October 19, 2005 07:45 PM


Mike: I've no idea. I know from clerking that the vast majority of non-criminal constitutional claims that I saw were frivolous, or at least ultimately without merit.

Posted by: Nate Oman at October 19, 2005 08:02 PM


Mr. Blummer, it's generally recognized in argumentation, and in issues involving the validity of source materials, that the one asserting a proposition or holding out some quote to be true has the burden of proving his case. You proved your case by providing the e-mail wherein the quote was contained. But make no mistake: A reader does not "bear the burden of disproving" anything until the writer has proved his case. Again, you proved your case, so the issue is moot here. But in the future, you should remember that the one who making the argument bears the burden of proof.

Posted by: Mike at October 20, 2005 12:48 PM


Mike, I think you're misreading what Tom said. He said now that there is proof of the quote's veracity, someone who wants to question the quote bears the burden of showing why the quote isn't valid. I think that's quite right. Tom has carried his burden of production and the requirements of proof now shift to the other side unless you can impeach the source, which amounts to the same thing in any event.

Posted by: John Jenkins at October 20, 2005 05:10 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Michael O'Shea

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Robert Ahdieh
Miriam Cherry
Mark Edwards
Susan Kuo
Jonathan Lipson
Scott Moss
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Geoffrey Rapp
Susan Scafidi
Howard Wasserman






ad-logo3.jpg

blawg100_winner2.jpg

Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Craig Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Dan Kahan
Sam Kamin
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Joseph Liu
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Neil RIchards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Paul Secunda
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Robert Tsai
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
Beltway Blogroll
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
Convictions
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
JD2B.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Letters
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian
Mirror of Justice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
Political Theory Daily Review
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog

Pajamas Media BlogRoll Member