Ted Frank has the latest on Lott’s appeal of the dismissal of his case:

Lott is now claiming that the case should have been decided under the allegedly more friendly Virginia libel law than the Illinois law under which his claim fails, but that is generally an argument for (at best) a claim of legal malpractice, rather than for a do-over for an expressly waived argument in federal court. Lott has posted the briefs; David Glenn blogs about the 2-year mark in the case. Not that I think Lott has a valid legal malpractice claim, either, unless his attorneys told him he had a good shot at winning more than he would spend in legal fees.

Comments

  1. #1 tomdurk
    April 26, 2008

    Frank referred to Lott’s interesting legal research. I refereed a Lott-Frank Zimring debate once, & was left w/ the impression that Lott starts w/ a conclusion and works backwards. Expected in a politician, not so much in legal studies.

  2. #2 QrazyQat
    April 26, 2008

    Technically true then: interesting, just not valid or good.

  3. #3 Mark Shapiro
    April 27, 2008

    Lott is not merely interesting; he is positively fascinating.

    I am amazed to this day at the statistical “analysis” he got away with when the US Civil Rights Commission investigated the 2000 elections in Florida. See how he “helped” commissioner Thernstrom show that race was not a factor. Don’t look just at race by county, quoth Lott, be more sophisticated and look at the 2nd order – - change in racial makeup. Thus a county that is 90% black is exactly the same as a county that is 90% white, as long as neither changes.

    Just like driving at 10 MPH is the same as driving at 90 MPH as long as you don’t accelerate.

    Wow.

    The report is at http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/vote2000/report .
    Thernstroms dissent is at http://www.thernstrom.com .

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!