Yes, I acknowledge that point in the post. I value civility more than you, I guess, and that makes me just as vague as some of what I’m commenting about. Also, tactics matter. My goal was to provoke self-examination, and I think that being specific about particularly bad blogging might not be the best approach.

1) Blogging by law profs should be about subjects they have expertise on.

2) If a more political dialogue begins, it can only be a “contribution” if both Democrats and Republicans are in dialogue.

As for 1–law profs and academics in general read a lot and enjoy thinking about tough issues. Let their opinions be given free rein!

As for 2–a lot of fruitful discussion happens within a community with shared norms. Let the liberal law profs support each other and refine their ideas among themselves. There’s a lot of work to be done within each “side” of cultural and economic issues in politics in talking within a common framework–rather than engaging with people of radically different values.

Finally, it’s a bit ironic that a post criticizing the lack of substance in law prof political blogging fails to cite particular examples of that lack of substance. Reminds me a bit of the horrible law prof political blogger who fails to back up opinions on facts. . . . or gets too meta.

Congratulations to President Obama. “To each his own” and “to each his own knowledge of what serves his best interests.” This election was a demonstration that representative government in democratic republics may be possible when the populace is brought to understand how important it is to exercise the right to vote.

I was shocked and pleasantly surprised to see the turnout on election day of young voters and people of color whom I had never seen before at our local Poll location.

Where have these people been hiding? Did they just become of age to cast their votes or did they recently move into the neighborhood? Of course not! Millions of new voters were inspired by a message of hope and a vision of a better world — AND the opportunity to protest the ugly status quo of so much that is wrong in this country.

So much of what is wrong has, unfortunately, been supported and made possible by the leadership of The American Bar Association. The ABA so often treats the law as “product” to be sold to the highest bidders –the corporate powers of our nation who increasingly encroach on the individual rights of citizens in the interests of greater profits and control for the corporations.

It is my observation that law professors who live safely in the academic world always support the status quo of the law in the real world because they perceive this to be in their best interests. Law professors sell their academic expertise in the commercial world and thus even “opinion” becomes product that is sold in the market place.

At least the law professors who blog share their expertise and knowledge and opinions for nothing and this is a public service.

Congratulations to President Obama. “To each his own” and “to each his own knowledge of what serves his best interests.” This election was a demonstration that representative government in democratic republics may be possible when the populace is brought to understand how important it is to exercise the right to vote.

I was shocked and pleasantly surprised to see the turnout on election day of young voters and people of color whom I had never seen before at our local Poll location.

Where have these people been hiding? Did they just become of age to cast their votes or did they recently move into the neighborhood? Of course not! Millions of new voters were inspired by a message of hope and a vision of a better world — AND the opportunity to protest the ugly status quo of so much that is wrong in this country.

So much of what is wrong has, unfortunately, been supported and made possible by the leadership of The American Bar Association. The ABA so often treats the law as “product” to be sold to the highest bidders –the corporate powers of our nation who increasingly encroach on the individual rights of citizens in the interests of greater profits and control for the corporations.

It is my observation that law professors who live safely in the academic world always support the status quo of the law in the real world because they perceive this to be in their best interests. Law professors sell their academic expertise in the commercial world and thus even “opinion” becomes product that is sold in the market place.

At least the law professors who blog share their expertise and knowledge and opinions for nothing and this is a public service.

Put me on the first side of that divide.

(That is, star footnote #3, not unprintable-word-with-three-letters.)