Last Thursday I was interviewed on one of the nation’s great radio shows, Milt Rosenberg’s extension 720. It was a wide-ranging discussion and host Milt Rosenberg had some generous words for the book; also participating by telephone for part of the show was Dan Polsby, dean at the George Mason University School of Law. WGN has now posted the podcast of the show here. I’ve been a guest on several other shows as well in recent days, including Brian Schimming (guest-hosting for Vicki McKenna), on Wisconsin’s WIBA, BlogTalkRadio “Patriot Games” with D.R. Tucker, and “Battle Line.”
Prominent NYU legal ethicist Stephen Gillers, with whose views I’ve not always seen eye to eye in the past, was in the audience at my NYC talk earlier this month and has written up some of his reactions here. (The speech by Justice Samuel Alito to which he refers is here.) Meanwhile, a letter-writer at the WSJ enjoyed John McGinnis’s review last week, and Elizabeth Wurtzel has been wanting to read the book since she heard about it.
One Comment
The podcast was excellent.
My stepson was born in Thailand. When his mother and I enrolled him in school here in Ossining, the school official said that his vaccination was not acceptable. He was vaccinated at 10 moths and State Rules require vaccination at one year. Holy Cow. How could two months make such a difference. The boy had a blood test that showed enough antibodies for a small town. There are people who are very rule oriented.
Mr. Rosenberg invited you to go for the liberal/conservative angle, but you declined the invitation. There is something deeper going on. Modifying rules of evidence did terrible harm with respect to convictions based repressed memory (Father Shanley for example.) But the repressed memory evidence was clearly suggestion and nonsense. Why did judges ( The judge in the father Shanley Case was particularly awful.), prosecutors (Even Janet Reno.), and juries buy into the gibberish? It’s not a Democrat/Republican thing.