Comments on: Unbelievable! http://crookedtimber.org/2006/01/25/unbelievable-3/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sat, 26 May 2012 21:58:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: paul http://crookedtimber.org/2006/01/25/unbelievable-3/comment-page-1/#comment-141781 paul Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:40:50 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/01/25/unbelievable-3/#comment-141781 I wonder how many letters the Times has gotten from her praising Lott's work. I wonder if they'll accidentally publish one. I wonder how many letters the Times has gotten from her praising Lott’s work. I wonder if they’ll accidentally publish one.

]]> By: Barry Freed http://crookedtimber.org/2006/01/25/unbelievable-3/comment-page-1/#comment-141710 Barry Freed Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:42:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/01/25/unbelievable-3/#comment-141710 <i>Maybe Mary Rosh is working for the Times these days.</i> Word is she's filling Judy Miller's Manolo Blahnik's these days. Maybe Mary Rosh is working for the Times these days.

Word is she’s filling Judy Miller’s Manolo Blahnik’s these days.

]]> By: will u. http://crookedtimber.org/2006/01/25/unbelievable-3/comment-page-1/#comment-141646 will u. Thu, 26 Jan 2006 01:51:51 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/01/25/unbelievable-3/#comment-141646 Adding insult to TimesSelect injury.. Adding insult to TimesSelect injury..

]]> By: John Isbell http://crookedtimber.org/2006/01/25/unbelievable-3/comment-page-1/#comment-141627 John Isbell Thu, 26 Jan 2006 01:32:42 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/01/25/unbelievable-3/#comment-141627 Maybe Mary Rosh is working for the Times these days. Maybe Mary Rosh is working for the Times these days.

]]> By: joe o http://crookedtimber.org/2006/01/25/unbelievable-3/comment-page-1/#comment-141624 joe o Thu, 26 Jan 2006 00:51:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/01/25/unbelievable-3/#comment-141624 <a href="http://www.aei.org/events/filter.all,eventID.1006/event_detail.asp" rel="nofollow">Many of the measurements of quality that Lott uses, such as Law Review and the Choi Gulati index, reward ideological extremism.</a> The Choi-Gulati index in particular is a measure of number of opinions written, cites in other districts and "independence". If you write out of the mainstream dissents, you tend to score high on the "independence" portion of the Choi-Gulati index, without the ABA neccessarily looking favorably at you. Out of district cites, and possibly productivity, also favour ideological judges. Other judges will have a lot of mainstream judges to cite over a longer period of time, but fewer ideological judges to cite. Ideological, or ideosyncratic, judges will also tend to write a lot of opinions since their differences with their peer judges is greater. If you are a judge in the mainstream you can be pretty confortable that an opinion written by a fellow judge will be close to your general viewpoint, ideological judges can't be so sure, so they will tend to write more opinions. Many of the measurements of quality that Lott uses, such as Law Review and the Choi Gulati index, reward ideological extremism.

The Choi-Gulati index in particular is a measure of number of opinions written, cites in other districts and “independence”. If you write out of the mainstream dissents, you tend to score high on the “independence” portion of the Choi-Gulati index, without the ABA neccessarily looking favorably at you.

Out of district cites, and possibly productivity, also favour ideological judges. Other judges will have a lot of mainstream judges to cite over a longer period of time, but fewer ideological judges to cite. Ideological, or ideosyncratic, judges will also tend to write a lot of opinions since their differences with their peer judges is greater. If you are a judge in the mainstream you can be pretty confortable that an opinion written by a fellow judge will be close to your general viewpoint, ideological judges can’t be so sure, so they will tend to write more opinions.

]]>