Everybody Must Get Stoned

Sometimes I worry that my old professor, Geoff Stone, is losing it. Rather than rationally voicing his opposition to the Bush Administration's policies, he inveighs against them as if this were some titanic, unprecedented battle over the soul of America. (I know pundits regularly talk this way, and shame on them. Academics should have more taste and intelligence.)

Look at the University of Chicago Law School's Faculty Blog for the evidence. (Stone, by the way, taugh me Evidence). Even a blog should have some standards.

On July 22nd, he declared Bush's veto of legislation authorizing federal funds for stem cell research showed "reckless disregard for the fundamental American aspiration to keep church and state separate."

...to place his own sectarian, religious belief above the convictions of a majority of the American people and a substantial majority of both the House of Representatives and the Senate? In my judgment, this is no different from the President vetoing a law providing a subsidy to pork producers because eating pork offends his religious faith. Such a veto is an unethical and illegitimate usurpation of state authority designed to impose on all of society a particular religious faith.

I'm not even gonna bother criticizing the main argument. I do want to note, however, that Stone sees fit to mention the veto was unpopular with the public and much of the House and Senate. Was there some word quota you had to fill that day, Geoff?

Now, in Stone's latest outburst, he applauds Judge Taylor's decision against Bush's surveillance program. No surprise. (Okay, maybe a little surprise, since even if you like the result, you might question the reasoning.) But Stone goes on:

I have to admit I was surprised by the decision. It takes a good deal of courage for a judge to hold unlawful a program that the President of the United States maintains is essential to the national security.

Stop, you're killing me.

Columbus Guy says: Losing it? It was unclear to me that he ever had it. But I must defer to men and women such as Posner, who will occasionally sit in the same room with him.

My favorite Stone story was during this same evidence class, when Stone visited Case Western for two weeks (maybe one) as a guest lecturer. Upon his return, he felt the need to lecture the class that, on the whole, Case students were as bright, as hard working, as interested in the material as we were.

(You could feel the hackles of 80 people rise at that moment, I'll tell you.)

In fact, Stone said, but for a college grade here, a test score, a letter of recommendation there, those students could be where we were, and we could be where they were. That was significant, he said, because, while we would have jobs essentially a year before we graduated, one-third of Case students would have jobs at the time of graduation, another one-third would find them within a year, and essentially one-third would never work as lawyers.

So, Stone concluded, whenever we meet a student from Case, it would behoove us to think to ourselves, "There but for the grace of God go I."

LAGuy took this to heart. "Whenever I see Geoff Stone," he said. "I think, 'There but for the grace of God go I.'"

LAGuy adds: There's actually more to the story, including a moment where I raised Stone's hackles. Perhaps some day I will tell it, but I'm not sure that Pajama Guy is the place for war stories.

I should add I didn't find what he said particularly insulting.

Columbus Guy says: Insulting, hell, it was insightful. But that was decidedly a minority view, as the majority found it inciteful, I'd say. Fellow grad and witness Anonymous has it right: A pompous, blustering blowhard, but an enjoyable pompous, blustering blowhard.