Wednesday, October 23, 2013
Breaking News: Law Reviews Are Depositories of Worthless Content
The New York Times Wipes Its Ass with Law Reviews:
Adam Liptak’s article, “The Lackluster Reviews That Lawyers Love to Hate,” appeared in the October 21, 2013 edition of the New York Times. Thank you to the anonymous commenter who posted the hyperlink in the prior TTR entry. Read the entire piece, but focus on the following portion, in particular:
“Judge Dennis G. Jacobs, of the federal appeals court in New York, was similarly dismissive [as John G. Roberts was back in June 25, 2011].
“I haven’t opened up a law review in years,” he said in 2007. “No one speaks of them. No one relies on them.”
That is only mild hyperbole. About 43 percent of law review articles have never been cited in another article or in a judicial decision.
Law reviews are not really meant to be read. They mostly exist as a way for law schools to evaluate law professors for promotion and tenure, based partly on what they have to say and partly on their success in placing articles in prestigious law reviews.
The judge, lawyer or ordinary reader looking for accessible and timely accounts or critiques of legal developments is much better off turning to the many excellent law blogs.” [Emphasis mine]
I’m sure that several federal pig "judges" see these garbage publications as coming in handy, when they need to line their birds’ cages. According to the source above, legal blogs provide a better source of relevant material for those interested in legal matters.
Prior Coverage of John Roberts’ Remarks:
On July 7, 2011, the ABA Journal published this piece from Debra Cassens Weiss, under the headline “Law Prof Responds After Chief Justice Roberts Disses Legal Scholarship.” Check out the excerpt below:
“Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has raised hackles with his suggestion that there is a disconnect between the scholarship of law professors and the work of practitioners.
Roberts knocked law professors and their work while answering questions at the 4th Circuit Judicial Conference in White Sulphur Springs, W. Va., at the end of June.
The American Constitution Society blog has Roberts’ quote: “Pick up a copy of any law review that you see, and the first article is likely to be, you know, the influence of Immanuel Kant on evidentiary approaches in 18th Century Bulgaria, or something, which I’m sure was of great interest to the academic that wrote it, but isn’t of much help to the bar.” C-SPAN posted the interview.” [Emphasis mine]
Hell, even the chief robed politician in this country views law reviews as worthless dreck. That speaks volumes!
Would You Pay $100K for a Law Review Article?:
Paul Caron posted a TaxProf blog piece entitled “The $100,000+ Law Review Article,” on May 26, 2010. Look at this opening:
“As Law Profs nationwide gear up to write law review articles over the summer, Larry Cunningham (George Washington) calculates the economic value of the articles:
What’s the economic value of that scholarly article many law professors will write this summer? For the many schools that award scholars summer research grants, it is at least the value of that allocated to the piece—usually $12,500 to $20,000 at most US law schools.
But an excellent article well-placed also often translates into annual salary increments above a school’s merit pay raise pool. That can bump a raise up anywhere from 1% to 3%, or more, depending on the article and how one’s home-school peers do.
For a mid-career scholar earning a base salary of $200,000, say, that means as much as $6,000 or more. For that person, adding $6,000 a year for life, the article’s economic value gets well into the six figures (even discounting to present value).” [Emphasis mine]
In sum, the only people who benefit from this “legal scholarship” are the overpaid parasites known as “law professors.” Many federal swine "judges" are more likely to consult Wikipedia than law review articles, when rendering their ideologically-driven, political decisions. Make sure to remember that fact, when you are strapped down with an additional $135K in NON-DISCHARGEABLE debt - for a law degree - while making $40K per year.
Conclusion: You have seen how federal politicians in black dresses view the reams of useless toilet paper known as law reviews. As noted above, strong legal sites are more relevant than these non-peer reviewed publications. In fact, the ABA Journal reported - on February 29, 2012- that no major law journal had more than 2,000 paying subscribers. In contrast, Third Tier Reality gets roughly 800-1000 daily visitors. Yes, a site that regularly features pictures of fecal matter, filthy toilets and piles of horse excrement has a much higher readership than these supposed “academic works.” For $ome rea$on, the pigs and cockroaches have no qualms about this aspect of the law school scam.
Posted by Nando at 6:34 AM