Wednesday, June 15, 2005
A three day interdisciplinary meeting starts today in White Horse, Yukon to discuss past and present impacts of rapid environmental change on northern people and ecosystems. This is part of a series of interdisciplinary meetings on Dark Nature: Rapid Natural Change and Human Responses. You can access abstracts from the May Caspian Sea meeting in Rasht, Iran -- adjacent the Caspian Sea where sealevel has risen 13 centimeters per year between 1977 - 1995. The meeting of most interest may be the September 6 - 10, 2005 meeting in Como, Italy, which is intended to synthesize the results of the meetings and their implications for environmental policy. Link: The conference: Rapid Landscape Change Conference.
Professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University will be visiting George Mason in the fall teaching environmental law and administrative law. Hope you enjoy the return to your alma mater! Great place to think about free market environmentalism!
Professor David Case of University of Memphis also reports that he is visiting his alma mater (University of Mississippi) this summer to teach environmental law and civil procedure.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Bill Funk of Lewis & Clark provided some feedback on the first weekly questions: Has the Bush Administration politicized science more than previous administrations and what are the best devices to check the politicization of science?
I vote yes to the first question: Do you believe that the Bush Administration has politicized science to a far greater extent than previous administrations?
As to the second question: What are the best devices to check the politicization of science? I think electing people for whom science is not a threat to their ideological or religious views. In other words, I don't think there are good ways to create effective (and efficient) administrative systems to protect against politicization of science. Judicial review of agency action provides at least some limit on the effects of politicization of science, but to the extent that Congress subscribes to the same agenda as the administration, one will not see effective non-judicial safeguards.
KEEP THOSE CARDS AND LETTERS COMING -- I post comments made on weekly questions. Comments for last week's question on Scalia, federalism, and medical marijuana is still open.
Monday, June 13, 2005
This morning's PrawfsBlawg has an interesting census of the current law professor blogging population. They report that 103 law professors currently blog; we have 24 law professors who blog as part of our Law Professor Blogs Network.
PrawfsBlawg notes that of the 103 law professor bloggers, 80.6% (83) are male and 19.4% (20) are female. The comparable numbers for the 24 members of the Law Professor Blogs Network: 62.5% (15) male and 37.5% (9) female.
Here are the law schools with the most law professor bloggers:
Law Schools with Most Law Prof Bloggers
Number of Bloggers
The Supreme Court has decided that Congress can regulate medical marijuana.
Scalia voted in the majority. The case does seem inconsistent with Lopez and Morrison. Is this an example of Scalia's ideologically driven agenda or is Scalia's position truly reconcilable with his federalism votes? Should we consider Scalia's vote a safe state rights' vote in the environmental/resource realm or will Scalia's decisions depend upon whether the state is being "too green."
Any thoughts? E-mail me and I'll collate and post.