I've said this before, but I think it's worth adding a few caveats to Dylan Matthews's roundup of political science literature on the Supreme Courts. Particularly when the attitudinal model is used to defend very strong forms of legal realism, it's worth noting that the...
political science
You might think it's laziness, but actually it's science. And as for the otherwise even-more-irrelevant response, all you can say is that Paul Ryan is a complete fraud.
While I can't attend the workshop (lame prior commitment with stupid friends), I would like to associate myself, in a wholly disinterested manner, with this part of Dr. Walt's comment:.
Not as funny as the law school bit, but just as accurate: Via.
All your Bloggingheads are belong to us now.
I was in the audience for the APSA panel that Scott refers to below, although to maintain my anti-establishment cred* I sat in the back, away from the front row.
Alex Parets live-blogged yesterday's ISA panel on blogging, policy, and the political science discipline. Check it out. I should further note the blogs of the various questioners and participants, including Steve Walt, IPEatUNC's Will Winecoff, Peter Feaver, and Duck of Minerva's Stephanie Carvin.
In about an hour, Charli and I will sit on a roundtable titled "Do International Relations Blogs Inform Practice? Theory? Both? Neither?" with Stephen Walt, Dan Drezner, William Winecoff, and.
Rest in peace.
In response to Jeff Rosen's recent argument that Elena Kagan blew it at the recent oral arguments on a campaign finance case, Yglesias argues that oral arguments at the Supreme Court probably don't matter anyway. John Sides responds with a summary of some recent scholarship...
The possibility that McCain's choice of Palin really did significantly affect the 2008 elections is one I find genuinely fascinating. The question is obviously a good example of the fact.
It appears that Sam Huntington has passed. Soldier and the State is a fine book. Many of his other works I can't stand, to the point of repugnance. It's fair.