Welcome Also to Our New Coblogger Stephen Sachs

I'm delighted to report that Stephen E. Sachs, Professor of Law at Duke Law School, will be joining our blog. Steve specializes in constitutional law, civil procedure, Anglo-American legal history, and conflict of laws. He clerked for Judge Stephen F. Williams (D.C. Circuit) and for Chief Justice John Roberts (the year after our own Will Baude). Much looking forward to Steve's posts!

Comments

[y81]

He's from Duke, and wants to talk about civil procedure? At least it's not criminal procedure, which has concepts like due process and the presumption of innocence.

A priori, I find it hard to take a Duke law professor seriously, but I'm very open-minded and will give Prof. Sachs more of a chance than his colleagues gave the lacrosse team.

[Eugene Volokh]

Well, since Steve was just a law student (at Yale, as it happens) when the Duke lacrosse controversy took place, I don't really see much of a basis for tarring him with that brush. More broadly, I suspect that few of us Conspirators are in the ideological mainstream at the universities at which we teach, or at the law schools at which we teach (though perhaps our George Mason members might be an exception on the latter point).

[y81]

You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. But if the Conspirators are boring from within, subverting the corrupt institutions where they work, good for them.

[santamonica811]

I don't find the Conspirators boring at all.

[NToJ]

That's not what a priori means. That's not what any of this means.

[Bronze Khopesh]

You really need to put a hyphen between co and blogger. When I first read that I was wondering what the hell a cob logger was.

[Eugene Volokh]

Well, that's like how you can tell a plumber from a chemist -- ask them to pronounce "unionized."

[Jimmy the Dane]

Funny I was told it was by their choice of slacks and preference on looseness of waist size.

[Chem_Geek]

Un-ion-ized, doesn't everyone say it like that???

Just ask my cow orkers. 😉

[Chem_Geek]

(Actually, I'm starting to say it the wrong way nowadays. About two years ago, I left chemistry and got into scientific instruments, project management, and building laboratories. So I have had to work a lot with neutral carpenters, plumbers, etc. lately)

[AmosArch]

I think there should be some sort of prohibitionary period for the sake of quality control where you wait to see if the new member will actually be active instead of make one or two posts than drop off the face of the earth or make or two posts a year, before they officially 'join'. They can just be considered to be guestblogging in the meantime.

[Jimmy the Dane]

Here is your insiders guide to the Volokh Conspiracy:

1. It is really the Ilya conspiracy these days. I presume he has assumed the identity of Volokh and is now using this as an anti-Trump platform. But that is just my unconfirmed conspiracy theory.

2. There is a commenter that goes by something Kirkland. He is a bigoted troll. Just ignore him.

3. Make sure to publish at least one anti-Trump hit piece that relies upon fake news or some distorted legal theory or you might find yourself short lived on the conspiracy writing team.

4. Find some obscure niche of law and make sure to post about that at least once a week. The legal eagles will love it when you discuss, in depth, the history of the common law writ of quo warranto. It will also give you something to write that is of academic merit between coming up with required hit piece on Trump.

5. Posts deriding the PC clown brigade our much appreciated by the readership, however, the so-called "libertarian" trolls that live under the bridge in the dark side of the commentariat really don't like it when you point out things such as fake hate crimes or the fact that false rape allegations are real and not rare. You see the left needs these things to support its narrative and scare minorities and women into voting for them. Pointing out it is all just fake endangers that.

Otherwise welcome to this grand old blog.

[apedad]

"But that is just my unconfirmed conspiracy theory."

Why didn't you add that to 2. - 5. also?