Talk:Richard Posner/Archive 1

Untitled

I question the appropriateness of this passage: "While some mentioned Posner in 2005 as a potential nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor because of his prominence as a scholar and an appellate judge, he was never seriously considered for the post because of his age and because it was felt his writings would be used against him by both the left and the right." The statement is probably correct but is not demonstrably so, since only a handful of people in President Bush's inner circle were involved in the selection process and they are the only ones who know who was "seriously" considered and who was not. It may well be that Bush or one of his advisors did seriously consider Judge Posner for the vacancy.

Catastrophe: Risk and Response

I think it's really important to stress what he wrote in this book. He states in a quite long section how science is too risky to be done, so it should be controlled by some "scientifically litterate lawyers". The ideas proposed in that section of the book are so crazy and dangerous that I think it should be reported here so that everyone knows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.28.131.97 (talk) 16:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Any relevance to this article?--Gloriamarie (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-sitting Justice comment

I just wanted to add a note about that uncited statement that Posner is often called the greatest judge never to become a Supreme Court Justice. This is a statement I've heard often - in reference to Learned Hand. Given that the claim is more time-tested to Hand, I'd be tempted to give it to him for the time being (but who knows what will happen in the next few decades, especially after Posner retires/dies). Incidentally, it's worth noting that Hand himself was known for taking an economic approach to law (his Hand formula for negligence is basically a CBA) well before the Law and Econ movement Posner is associated with, and Posner cites to Hand at times in his opinions. Anthony Mohen (talk) 04:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Judge Posner is widely considered to be the greatest American jurist never to have served on the Supreme Court. In jest, Posner has frequently been cited as "The 10th Justice" of the United States Supreme Court.

I've removed that unsourced comment, and one which I believe violates WP:UNDUE, to this page for discussion. I agree with Anthony (above) that the statement applies more to Learned Hand. I'm not sure that the "Call it Democracy" documentary is a reliable source; I couldn't find it on Wikipedia; its website is here. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Reference

--- That footnote went to the wrong place without a reflist. PraeceptorIP (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Efficient breach

Judge Posner's arguments pro "efficient breach" were taught in my law school contracts class and are well-known enough to be included in an article about him. The eplanation I added here about it is largely taken from the Cover article. Hope it's not overly redundant to have the explanation in Wikipedia twice. --Tregonsee 22:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The brick-selling hypothetical misdescribed the nature of damages that could be collected. I replaced it with a much more abstract explanation of efficient breach. For a fuller description, the user can click over to the Efficient Breach article (where I corrected the same hypo). Dherb 10:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Apocryphal Reference

My Economic Justice Professor, educated at the University of Chicago among friends of Posner, gave a humorous quote designed to show Posner's intellect. I wonder whether it's appropriate to include here: "When you ask Richard Posner how some aspect of law relates to economics, sometimes he can think of an answer instantly, and sometimes it takes him a few seconds." Ryanluck 03:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

See WP:V. --FRCP11 14:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. That's very informative. Ryanluck 05:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Efficient breach revisited

I do not agree that this article should reference efficient breach. If Judge Posner has written on efficient breach (and I'm certain he has), I'd like to see the cite. But efficient breach is a longstanding doctrine in contract law. It did not originate with Judge Posner. --RMKeaton 03:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your suggestion. You’re right that I should have cited some sources. I didn’t keep my first-year contracts casebook so I can’t quote you that. I think my casebook cited to Richard A. Posner, Economic Analysis of Law, but I’m not absolutely sure about this and I don’t have a copy of Judge Posner's book handy.

As near as I can find, the first formal development of the theory of efficient breach may have been Charles J. Goetz & Robert E. Scott, "Liquidated Damages, Penalties and the Just Compensation Principle: Some Notes on an Enforcement Model and a Theory of Efficient Breach", 77 Colum. L. Rev. 554 (1977).

I wasn’t saying that Judge Posner originated the theory of efficient breach, but I did say that he’s written favorably of it. To put that in a less NPOV way, he’s advocated it tirelessly – let the chips fall where they may. And he hasn’t limited his advocacy to just his articles and books either. He’s done so from the bench. Check out, for example, Patton v. Mid-Continent Systems, Inc., 841 F.2d 742 (7th Cir. 1988) and Lake River v. Carborandum Co., 769 F.2d 1284 (7th Cir. 1985). Here’s a sample from Patton, at 750, where Judge Posner argues against damages for breach of contract:

Even if the breach is deliberate, it is not necessarily blameworthy. The promisor may simply have discovered that his performance is worth more to someone else. If so, efficiency is promoted by allowing him to break his promise, provided he makes good the promisee's actual losses. If he is forced to pay more than that, an efficient breach may be deterred, and the law doesn't want to bring about such a result.

Thanks again for prompting me to do some research to back up the statement and for raising the issue for discussion here. IMO, any encyclopedia article about Judge Posner should mention this advocacy - it seems to be well known, judging from the number of law review articles about it that turned up when I did a Lexis search.

Oh, BTW, I think it might be bad form to edit someone else's talk page comments, but I changed your heading to this discussion to a formal topic header. I hope you don't mind, as I just did that for clarity to set out this discussion from the topic above. --Tregonsee 00:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Additonal research on the subject, added later. A little more research and I found this[1] about the origins of efficient breach theory:

[T]he theory of efficient breach was first articulated by Robert Birmingham in his article, Breach of Contract, Damage Measures, and Economic Efficiency, 24 RUTGERS L. REV. 273, 284 (1970) (“Repudiation of obligations should be encouraged where the promisor is able to profit from his default after placing his promisee in as good a position as he would have occupied had performance been rendered”), and was christened by Charles Goetz and Robert Scott in Liquidated Damages, Penalties, and the Just Compensation Principle: A Theory of Efficient Breach, 77 COLUM. L. REV. 554 (1977).

Here's Judge Posner again. The quote cited[2] is apparently taken from the first edition of his Economic Analysis of Law:

. . . [I]n some cases a party [to a contract] would be tempted to breach the contract simply because his profit from breach would exceed his expected profit from completion of the contract. If his profit from breach would also exceed the expected profit to the other party from completion of the contract, and if damages are limited to loss of expected profit, there will be an incentive to commit a breach. There should be.

Again, thanks for prompting me to provide some documentation. Wikipedia is all about verification. --Tregonsee 00:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

More info

Anybody beside me believes this http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2006/11/judge_richard_p.html (or parts of it) deserve incorporation into the article? -- Wesha 16:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "or parts of it"? It has plenty of independant commentary to be notable and mentioned in the article at least. Cool Hand Luke 17:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Second Life

He has an avatar... go do a "Richard Posner Second Life" or something on google... maybe some article about that? --Colinstu 14:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Posner is an advocate for presidential dictatorship - what else needs to be said? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.103.153 (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

his books

There seems to be a separate stub article for "Overcoming Law" It would probably be much more useful merged here. DGG (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If he graduated Magna cum laude from Harvard he couldn't be FIRST in his class; that would be SUMMA cum laude. You need to get this correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.108.99 (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That is just wrong. You can be first in your class and not get a summa. You can be first and get only a magna or even just cum laude. For example, in YLS '59, the first in class (subsequently a S Ct law clerk and then law professor) was denied anything better than cum laude because he had offended the dean (Rostow) by criticizing him in an article. (As a result, all others behind him [2d, 3d, 4th, ...) were reduced to cum laude, also.) PraeceptorIP (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Legal Affairs poll

I would have more patience with this poll if it were mentioned once. It shows no sign of being a scientific survey; and it includes Dahlia Lithwick, Eugene Volokh, and Instapundit.

This is a survey of who the readers of this magazine happen to have heard of, not any evidence of actual influence. One mention, in text, is reasonable; the lead is undue weight. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I was not aware that posner wrote a book about the Iraq war. No reference is offered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.115.21.176 (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems that, if the "awards and honors" section of this article is going to have testimonials to his brilliance from Posner's former law clerks, then it also ought to contain the quote widely attributed to Justice William Brennan (for whom, as the article states, Posner clerked) that Posner was one of only two true geniuses Brennan had encountered in his lifetime, the other being Brennan's coeval on the Court, Justice William O. Douglas. A report of Brennan's statement can be found here. Ken Kukec (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Quote

hey didn't he say something about like we should all like not being all about what we're in our hearts but instead to use the rational parts of us? e controlled by some "scientifically litterate lawyers".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.230.162 (talk • contribs)

Criticism

I first came to Posner from a non-law perspective, only to be a little surprised to find out latter that he is a sitting judge. Has there been any criticism of the fact that a serving federal court judge is giving his political and philosophical opinions so freely and on so many issues? - 121.208.89.240 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC).

In relation to this question, on July 3 I posted an external link that took issue with what I regard as a controversial, and, in fact, indefensible statement that Posner made in a 1999 book on the Clinton impeachment, "The fringe has beliefs best described as paranoid fantasies such as that Vince Foster, the Deputy White House Counsel who committed suicide early in Clinton's first term, was murdered...."

Within 3 hours the link was removed by one "Chaser" who simply labeled the article as "extremist nonsense." In a country in which wars of aggression based upon proven falsehoods and torture of captives have been embraced by many mainstream opinion molders, the charge that the linked article about Posner is, in that context, "extremist" might have some merit. However, the charge that the article is nonsense simply does violence to the English language.

The article makes the quite sensible, logical argument that Posner is able to get by with such wave-of-the-hand dismissal of those who suggest that Foster might have been murdered because of the complete blackout by the mainstream press of the addendum to the Kenneth Starr report on Foster's death. The report was submitted by an aggrieved witness in the case and it was ordered included in the Starr report by a three-federal-judge panel over Starr's objections. The addendum can be found, as the article points out, by going to http://www.fbicover-up.com/ and clicking on "attached evidence." That evidence thoroughly undermines the glib conclusion that Foster committed suicide.

The article entitled Posner, the Propagandist, concludes that, based upon his treatment of this controversial matter, Posner is unfit to sit on the federal bench and is also unfit to be a law professor. Since that article was written, taped conversations by Starr's original lead investigator have been published in which the investigator alleges that the suicide conclusion was foreordained and the investigation was little more than a cover-up. A transcript can be found by clicking on "taped telephone conversations" at the same web site. WorldNetDaily had an article about the first of those conversations entitled [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33613 U.S. Attorney Says Foster Probe Fixed] on July 17, 2003. Anyone reading this information, of which "Chaser" would deprive Wikipedia readers, would agree that it is anything but nonsensical. FanFalter (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

See WP:ELNO, #11, "links to...personal web pages".--chaser (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Since "Chaser" in his response makes no attempt to defend his initial rationale for taking down the article, we may assume that he has now seen the light and concedes that he was very much off base to characterize the article as "extremist nonsense."

We, in turn, are willing to concede that Wikipedia's Rule 11 on external links, which he now invokes, makes it difficult to justify including "Posner the Propagandist," by David Martin among the links on the Richard Posner page. The problem that leaves us with, though, is that unless we are willing to interpret the rule rather loosely, Wikipedia readers are going to be left with something that is considerably short of the truth. That is particularly so in instances of high level crime, when Wikipedia's approved sources are all likely to line up in support of the official line.

Nothing better illustrates that problem than the case before us. The Chaser-excluded article maintains that Judge Posner was able to get by with dismissing as paranoid fantasists doubters that Vincent Foster committed suicide only because the news of the addendum to Starr's investigative report was completely blacked out by the media. But these news media and their counterparts in magazine and book publishing are the only approved sources for Wikipedia links. What are the chances that any of them would call out Judge Posner for making a public argument that presupposes the complete non-existence of that addendum? Worse yet, with the exception of World Net Daily, these news media have shown their complete lack of interest in the truth about the Foster death by blacking out the news of the recorded statements by Starr's first lead investigator that the Starr report on Foster was essentially a sham.

There is a possible way around the prohibition on the offending article, that is the "recognized authority" exception. Since they have written more extensively, incisively, and independently than anyone else in the world on the Foster death, the authors at http://www.dcdave.com and http://www.fbicover-up.com could be treated as recognized authorities on that case. I fear that Alexander Solzhenitsyn would have stood as great a chance to be recognized as an authority on the GULAG by the Soviet Union, but we'll see. FanFalter (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is a tertiary reference source. That means that we rely mostly on reliable secondary sources ("wikipedia's approved sources", as you say) to produce articles. Reliable sources are often the mainstream ones, which makes us somewhat conservative (in the generic, apolitical sense of the word). As to "recognized authority", that phrase in #11 links here, which includes publication of the authority's works in reliable third-party publications. Is that true of David martin, or does he only publish at his website? The parenthetical in #11 says David Martin should also meet the notability standard, but we don't have an article for him (see here), so I cannot tell whether he meets that standard.--chaser (talk) 22:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Legal Career

The citation regarding the opinion that he will never sit on the Supremem Court does not describe his opposition to prohibition as an "outrageous position". This should be corrected, but I am unsure as how to rewrite the paragraph. Does anyone care to attempt? --AleXd (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference has "occasionally, produces outrageous conclusions" which I kind of massaged in there. - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"Political Ideology of a Classical Liberal" Removed

This unsubstantiated claim is fundamentally contradictory to his political positions. Additionally, not one reference was provided of others holding him in that status. The contradiction, therefore, is removed. Please feel free to correct me otherwise. Objective Reason (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

In Need of Clarification

This is a sentence fragment: "As a judge on the 7th Circuit in Chicago, weighing a challenge to the Illinois Eavesdropping Act, which bars the secret recording of conversations without the consent of all the parties to the conversation." Someone who can guess at the author's intent should take a stab at fixing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcanicus (talk • contribs) 20:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Torture

Why is Posner's advocacy for torture not mentioned anywhere in the article? 75.76.213.161 (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Article Heading

In an attempt to avoid an edit war, I would like whoever is reverting my edits to explain why exactly a sentence about Posner's cats belong on the heading of an article about an influential circuit court judge and law professor. If no rationale is given I am going to assume bad faith/vandalism. Quetzapretzel (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Humanizing detail, light, interesting, and something he's alluded to in his opinions themselves (see: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D02-13/C:13-1087:J:Williams:aut:T:fnOp:N:1290360:S:0). Why so serious? The reference itself is positively Posnerian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.241.40.126 (talk) 19:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the information is humanizing and light, but it doesn't abide by WP:REL. Unless you can articulate an actual rationale that is consistent with Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines, continuing to revert the edits is vandalism. Quetzapretzel (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Its relevance? It's an undisputed fact about the subject that he himself felt was notable enough to mention in the interview cited as well as, again, reference in his actual work. It tells the reader much more about the man than the fact that he mediated a dispute for Microsoft in 1999, analyzed the Monica Lewinsky scandal, or any of the other facts mentioned in the article that I assume you find relevant. As these Guidelines say, "It is not reasonable to disallow all information that some editors feel is unimportant, because that information could be important to some readers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.182.185 (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

At this point I think it's more than obvious that you're a troll, but if you feel so strongly about it, put it somewhere else in the article, not in the section header. Quetzapretzel (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Confusing, uncited statement on rulings with respect to the sentencing guidelines and the recording of police actions

"As a judge, with the exception of his rulings with respect to the sentencing guidelines and the recording of police actions, Posner's judicial votes have always placed him on the moderate-to-liberal wing of the Republican Party, where he has become more isolated over time."

What's the deal? Is he to the left of what you would expect or to the right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underdog456 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Richard Posner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100608223849/http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2009/06/the_social_cost.html to http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2009/06/the_social_cost.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Prisoners - vermin

A prior editor objected to the Posner quotation on prisoners as vermin, or not, because it was "unsourced." I added a citation to the case of Johnson v. Phelan, in which the quoted language occurs. The person objecting to the lack of source could easily have supplied it by ordinary research means. PraeceptorIP (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Posner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:z_00xKQFNPoJ:www.igreens.org.uk/richard_posner.htm+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us with https://web.archive.org/web/20070509143331/http://www.igreens.org.uk/richard_posner.htm on http://www.igreens.org.uk/richard_posner.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Fourteenth amendment

Are Posner's views on the fourteenth amendment significant? I noticed this in the Birthright citizenship in the United States article:

The most recent judge to weigh in on the issue as to whether a constitutional amendment would be necessary to change the policy is Judge Richard Posner who remarked in a 2003 case that "Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense." He explained, "A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I doubt it." Posner also wrote, that automatic birthright citizenship is a policy that "Congress should rethink" and that the United States "should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children."

It seems like something which could be significant to me. On the other hand the only source is the Center for Immigration Studies and the original opinion so I think we need more evidence it's significant enough in relation to Richard Posner.

References

Nil Einne (talk) 12:04, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The references have been spammed and I don't know how to edit them.

Footnote 22 leads to: "Collins, Ronald K. L. (January 9, 2015). "The Complete Posner on Posner Series". Concurring Opinions. Retrieved August 27, 2015."

The link goes to a Chinese medicine website; obviously, it's been spam cptured somehow. But when I try to Edit Source, all I see is some kind of {reflist} special wikipedia device that I don't know how to access. So someone more experienced needs to fix it. The link should be to:

http://www.ideobook.com/2310/complete-posner-on-posner-series-concurring-opinions/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editeur24 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Race and public education reversion section

I reverted Redxiv's edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Richard_Posner&oldid=1011625137 as it is both unsourced and untrue. Posner's contention -- that there are average differences in IQ measurements across races in the US -- is incredibly well-supported by the relevant scientific literature. What scientists disagree about is not whether these differences exist, but rather what causes them. Critics of race and intelligence research assert that such differences are due to environmental factors.

My understanding is that it is okay for me to revert obviously wrong and uncited information in this manner, but I am new to the Wikipedia project, so please let me know if I didn't dot my i's and cross my t's properly.

References