Talk:Erwin Chemerinsky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Chicago (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


No one is an "expert" in law -- only a scholar or a study. I changed it in the first sentence. --Jophus00 (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I was in Southern California in the 1990s and started working at USC in 1996, where Chemerinsky was a star faculty member. I don't remember any press attention about "Clause C," much less a "Clause C" affair. Even if this was a rare case where Chemerinsky and Levinson were outliers, I doubt that it merits this much space. Mpayton54 (talk) 14:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I was one of Prof. Chemerinsky's students shortly before the ballot measure was proposed and I paid attention to news coverage. I would remember any real focus on him in the press, so I can confidently say there wasn't any. I think this passage (and others in the article) was written by someone with an ax to grind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"He is widely considered to be the foremost scholar in United States constitutional law and federal civil procedure." This statement is unsupported and likely unsupportable. It would be more accurate to use a statement such as, "He is a prominent scholar in United States...." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Supreme Court[edit]

Erwin is the most honest man I've ever met. Unfortunately, that may be a disqualification for a politically-appointed (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Clause C affair[edit]

Clause C affair[edit]

I have removed the following section. It gives undue weight to a minor incident, in an article that does not give similar coverage to other positions held by the subject. This is not permitted by Wikipedia policy, and rightly so.

It also has the demerit of being largely unsourced. In particular, there is no sourcing of "much press attention in California".

I propose that this section not be reinstated until it is significantly reduced, and tightly sourced. If neither condition is met, it should remain absent.

In 1995 and 1996, Chemerinsky, together with Laurie Levenson of Loyola Law School, received much press attention in California for their controversial contention that California Proposition 209, a ballot measure then before the voters (now Article 1, Section 31, of the California constitution) prohibiting public institutions from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, or ethnicity, would repeal protections against sex discrimination already existing in California's laws and state constitution.
Chemerinsky stated that clause (c) of Proposition 209 would have "a devastating impact on programs to remedy discrimination against women and minorities. Gains of the past few years will be erased and additional progress will be unlikely..."[1]
He also said "Clause C [of Proposition 209] creates the outrageous possibility that the protection of women's constitutional rights will be greatly weakened under the California Constitution".[2]
These claims were the basis for a significant portion of the TV and print advertising against the ballot measure.
Law review articles pointed out that given its wording, clause (c) could not conceivably affect any other legal or constitutional measures which might already prohibit sex discrimination.[1]
Critics viewed Chemerinsky’s interpretation as a gross misreading of clause (c), and doubted that—as law professors—he and Levenson could actually have believed it themselves. The argument was viewed as an unscrupulous effort to get around the fact that the ballot measure's actual substance was quite popular. Although Chemerinsky made numerous media appearances in which he advanced his novel interpretation of clause (c), he did not write any law review articles in which he explained his analysis.
Clause (c) reads, “Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” Proponents of the ballot measure stated that the purpose of this clause was simply to make sure that Proposition 209 itself was not read, for example, to mandate "supervision by men of girls' locker rooms" [2]. They pointed out that given its restrictive phrasing " this section", as a matter of logic it could not limit the effect of any other pre-existing laws or articles of the state constitution.
In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, and it was upheld against various federal court challenges. Since its adoption, there do not appear to have been any court decisions in which clause (c) was the basis for any changes in protections against sex discrimination in California, as Chemerinsky and Levenson had predicted.

Grace Note (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The Irvine 11: a one-sided presentation, as is, I assume, the rest of the piece[edit]

The article footnotes Chemerinsky's LA Times editorial on the Irvine 11, but omits the reply by Mark Levine. I have corrected that. Chemerinsky is portrayed as a protector of the free exchange of ideas, yet there was no 'exchange of ideas' at Oren's presentation. Unlike John Yoo at Chapman just months earlier, this was not a debate. And departing from the agenda, there was no Q&A. Sit there and shut up does not equate to a free exchange of ideas, and an eight second interruption does not constitute a disruption, even if a lawyer argues that it does. ( ( Martin | talkcontribs 02:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

re: outspoken defender[edit]

  • text said: Chemerinsky has been an outspoken defender of freedom of speech, defending it from the Heckler's veto.
  • changed to: Chemerinsky has defended freedom of speech from the Heckler's veto.
  • actually closer is: Chemerinsky says campus speakers should be protected from students' shouts.

removing the puffery ( Martin | talkcontribs 04:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

Nomination for Supreme Court[edit]

I listened to several lectures by Professor Chemrinsky and he is a brilliant person. He should be nominated to the Supreme court, he would be the liberal lion that the court sorely needs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The Conservative Assault on the Constitution[edit]

Once this book has a WP article, then wikilink it. But for now, assuming that it will be notable is WP:CRYSTAL, right? Add ISBN data, etc., if you like. But for now WP:RED should apply.--S. Rich (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ [3]
  2. ^ [4]