Here’s the confusing part: Is it possible, even remotely possible, that a Stanford Law School professor is wholly unfamiliar with the concept of an appeal? The reason that question is raised is that Stanford has Michele Landis Dauber on its faculty. It allows her to be in a classroom with law students. It pays her. And yet, there is something fundamentally askew with her grasp of basic law.
This first arose when Brock Turner appealed his conviction. Dauber went on a tear about the outrage of Turner challenging his conviction, as if appealing was an affront to humanity rather than what every criminal defendant is entitled by law to do. That she simultaneously endorsed the not-gonna-be-a-hit-song F*ck Brock Turner gave rise to the belief that perhaps Dauber’s problem wasn’t manifest ignorance, but insanity.
And yet, she went and did it again.
“His decision to appeal the original court decision is part of a long line of terrible decisions by Judge Persky, who seems to be putting his own personal, financial, and political interests ahead of that of the voters and taxpayers,” said recall leader and Stanford law professor Michele Dauber in a news release.
An appeal is putting his interests ahead of the voters? Judge Persky appealed the decision that he was a local, rather than state, officer, and that the recall petition should have gone to the California Secretary of State. The decision below, that the Santa Clara County Registrar was sufficient, was affirmed.
An issue was raised and resolved. That’s how law is done.
It would be one thing if Dauber was at least minimally consistent in her professed concerns for the sake of women, but she’s not. She’s obsessed with Judge Persky. Other issues arise, and she’s got nothing to say. There are plenty of judges more worthy of concern than Persky, who has the backing of both prosecution and defense, but Dauber couldn’t care less. It’s like she suffers from Persky disease, except there is no such thing.
Aside from what I characterize as her jihad, due to her myopic obsession with one individual judge rather than an issue or a problem, does she make her followers stupider? Probably not, as they’re predisposed to be blind and stupid in their inability to grasp that taking issue with the sentence imposed on Brock Turner is fine in itself, but demanding his recall based on one sentence is off-the-charts nuts.
The problem is that Dauber, as the Ayatollah of the Recall, gets her credibility from Stanford law school. Had she been some random flake, nobody would care. But she’s a law professor. And not merely a law professor, but a prawf at a law school of some significance.
This is not a question of academic freedom. Dauber can take on any cause she wants, no matter how intellectually dishonest or irrational. Many do. (Hi, Larry.) But when she attacks a litigant for appealing an adverse ruling, she calls into question her basic competency to teach. It’s bad enough that professors of questionable mental stability are allowed in classrooms to shape malleable young minds, but when they lack a basic understanding of how their subject matter works, then they lack the competence to teach.
There’s something very wrong with Michele Dauber. Does she not grasp that every litigant is entitled to appeal? Her statement, that Judge Persky’s taking an appeal reflects some abuse, some misconduct, isn’t merely irrational, isn’t merely intellectually dishonest, but fundamentally incompetent.
And without her sitting in the Frederick I. Richmond endowed professor chair, Michele Landis Dauber would just be another flaming nutjob spewing idiotic nonsense. Stanford law school has enabled this insanity, this professor who claims appeals are “putting his own personal, financial, and political interests ahead of that of the voters and taxpayers.” This is not a stable person, but more to the point, this is not a person who has the capacity to teach law.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Stop denying her diseased experience.
Her behavior on this makes me think of the type of bad guy in movies, the one who screams in frustration that their target won’t hold still, interfering with the guy’s attempts to kill them.
I can’t speak to her law expertise, but when it comes to understanding human nature, she’s determined to fail. The judge won’t hold still so that she can destroy him with ease, which outrages her. This detachment from reality also calls into question her suitability as a teacher.
But then, isn’t she just an extreme example of the view of the activist Left, who are perpetually outraged that people don’t behave the way they “should”, with regards to their Cause?
If she was shrieking about all “bad” judges, yes. If she was screaming about others as well as Persky, maybe. But it’s just Persky. That’s not an SJW thing, a feminist thing or a lefty thing. It’s just perverse.
The appeal of concepts is more like it. But you in your myopic, idiosyncratic way, chose to look at it thru amethyst-colored glasses. Look you know this is academia, and still you get all worked up in a lather over something most of us would never notice–and if we did, would not give it no nevermind. (Double negative there, for the unwary and uneducated out there. Suffer.)
How is law done again? Am curious George!
For some reason, BB, the more of your comments I read, the more they make some sort of weird sense. It’s like they are horoscopes or something where anyone can read into them what they will. I understand I’m only getting a portion, but still.
You’re right. Dumb people don’t care about the distinctions our Host points out; they are lost in the shuffle. That’s the danger of Daubers. Not everyone is so skeptical of authority as you. Stanford Law Professor sounds impressive, but is it really?
Don’t encourage this. Seriously.
Your confusion springs from the idea that law schools exist to teach law. They do not. They exist to make money. If Dauber’s spewage was costing them money, it would stop. I expect that it will continue.
Point taken.
She didn’t actually challenge his ability to appeal, but bagged on the appeal as a “bad decision.” I think that is her political opinion, not a legal opinion. But more generally, I agree that there are plenty of signs that she has issues rendering her a less than desirable candidate to teach law students (or really anyone) about law or legal practice.
Read it again. Harder. Particularly as to the appeal being putting his personal interest, etc., ahead of the voters by appealing. Just as she did with Turner’s appeal, the evil was his appealing at all.
She may stroke out if Turner’s appeal is ruled in his favor.
That’s why they make psychotropic medications.
I read it hard, several times. I think Mr. McLoed’s take is the fairer view. She is impugning his judgment, not his legal right. She is also labeled as the leader of the recall movement (i.e. a lady with an ax to grind). Not particularly surprising that she believes he lacks judgment.
Sometimes us slow readers may be a bit more discerning than the smartest guys in the room?
Sometimes. This time? Your vote is duly noted.
So Professor Jihad says filing an appeal is putting the appellant’s “own personal, financial and political interests above that [sic] of the voters and taxpayers.” Unfortunately, that’s what a lot of appellate judges think too, including St. Justice Ginsburg who sniffed, “Appellate review is more than occasionally sought because it is available and inexpensive. . . . Over 80% are affirmed because the appellant’s case is exceedingly weak. . . . My first words of caution to lawyers contemplating an appeal: perhaps you shouldn’t.” Consarn it! When will people ever learn that trial courts are infallible?