Other people will no doubt have a plethora of reactions to this rather heated debate over the Patriot Act between U.Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone and Professor-Judge Richard Posner. I’m afraid that my initial reaction was that I think I’d really like Chicago (a law school which I’ve only ever visited once, and then only too briefly to get a feel for the place).
Recent Bluessky Posts- It has to be fear. The question is whether it's fear for their political future, fear for their economic options after they leave office, or fear for their life if the mob decides to come after them or their families. (In some cases I guess it could be blackmail but that seems like reaching.) March 4, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- In which we demonstrate that there is no need for a horse to become a member of the Senate in order for it to become irrelevant March 4, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- Looks like yet another executive order or draft rule designed to get a headline more than achieve anything other than maybe drain legal resources from people who haven't drunk the Kool-Aid. March 4, 2026 Michael Froomkin
- Jotwell Jurisprudence: Izabela Skoczen, What is Real Law?, JOTWELL (March 4, 2026) (reviewing Brian Flanagan & Guilherme de Almeida, Lawful, But Not Really: The Dual Character of the Concept of Law, 43 L. & Phil. 507 (2024)), juris.jotwell.com/what-is-real.... March 4, 2026 Jotwell
- Liberty U career serv job advice, "The two most important requirements are you MUST be aligned politically with President Trump and his administration and you must be willing to work hard. Don’t be scared off by the transcript requirement. GPA is not a strong factor." abovethelaw.com/2026/03/law-... March 3, 2026 Michael Froomkin
Indeed, interesting debate, including the “heat” in it. Unlike other cases of online exchange regarding highly sensitive legal issues, at the end of this one I have the impression that, while keeping up the interest by throwing around some truly poisonous darts (at the end, to say that Judge Posner advocated for “selling babies” is, in my opinion, pushing it a bit too much; the moderation of his response is, on the other hand, a touch of great class), both parties have gone into a lot of technical detail – more than average, considering the context.
Example of the contrary, in the field of economics, where a member of the academia goes way over the top and, in doing so, kills the debate (note that this “open letter” was first read live, in the addressee’s face -a nobel prize, no less-, in front of several hundred colleagues of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank): http://www.imf.org/external/np/vc/2002/070202.htm