Monday, December 24, 2007
Adam Liptak in the NYT has a column today discussing ATRA's Judicial Hellholes report. He points out that it's based largely on anecdotal evidence, and that, not shockingly, not everyone would agree that ATRA's goals are good ones. ATRA responds to the first point:
“We have never claimed to be an empirical study,” said Darren McKinney, a spokesman for the association. “It’s not a batting average or a slugging percentage. It’s no more or less subjective than what appears in The New York Times.”
It's worth a read.