Talk:Frank Easterbrook

NPOV dispute [Alternate Opinions; Controversy]

This section is very poorly written (poor sentence structure, use of slashes). More importantly, it makes very sweeping statements in non-neutral language with no citations. Examples: "impeccable provenance", "masterful presentation", "caused a major convulsion" (really? how?), "reverberating throughout the American legal establishment" (source?). Consider deleting. Tonytiger76 (talk) 05:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Frank Hoover Easterbrook was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Trivia

Deleted three items of trivia that were duplicated elsewhere in the article. 24.216.65.179 (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Background

What was going on in history when Easterbrook was in college? Only the biggest war of our lifetime and a draft which took 3 million men away from their civilian lives. Yet the war and how Easterbrook dealt with it is absent from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.69.229 (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

How Easterbrook dealt with it? The vast majority of Americans didn't do anything in relation to that war that would be noteworthy or worth recording in an encyclopedia.74.134.145.218 (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with previous post - did the OP feel that super-Easterbrook should somehow end the war in Viet-Nam?? Very strange request for an encyclopedia.104.169.18.0 (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Non-sequitur

One paragraph of the article opens by noting that Easterbrook has been characterized as hardnosed and demanding in oral argument. It then cites the opinion in the case as an example of this. The tone of an opinion in a case is not related to the character of oral argument, let alone the character of one judge's questioning during argument. In addition, cases in Federal courts of appeals are heard by three-judge panels. The opinion, while written by Easterbrook, was written on behalf of a three-judge panel of which Easterbrook is only one member. Thus, the order to show cause was issued by the court, not by one judge, even the judge who wrote the opinion. 96.35.164.102 (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Presumed?

The following sentence appears in the "Nomination and Judicial Career" section: "The American Bar Association gave Easterbrook a low 'qualified/not qualified' rating, presumably due to his youth and relative inexperience". When did it become the job of Wikipedia editors to make such presumptions? I attempted to examine the sources cited at the end of that particular section and the NY Times article that is cited makes no such claims regarding Easterbrook's age and inexperience. The NPR source is no longer active.74.134.145.218 (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Residence

Where does he now lives נריה לוי (talk) 10:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Reference to Lexecon, Inc.

Is the reference to "Lexecon, Inc." referring to Compass Lexecon, the economic consulting firm? It wouldn't be out of the question, as it has an antitrust practice. Easterbrook's official UChicago website just lists "Lexecon Inc." but a google search of that phrase redirects you to Compass Lexecon. Die Kunst Der Fuge (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2022 (UTC)