Rarely do you see this degree of rhetorical ownage in constitutional argumentation.
« Liberal Catholic delusion
Tom Smith
|
Main
| Holder's hidden agenda
Tom Smith
»
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bf6e253ef0120a6922dbe970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Owned
Tom Smith
:
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
It'd be more impressive if it happened to someone other than Hamilton. She writes a lot, and almost all of it is this bad.
Posted by: Thomas | November 12, 2009 at 06:16 PM
I'll do you one better Tom. Check out Doug Laycock's review of her book. Amazing she still shows her face in public after such a smackdown. I'd crawl in a hole and hope nobody found me.
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/pdfs/105/6/laycock.pdf
Posted by: john knox | November 12, 2009 at 06:47 PM
I should add that I found the review absolutely delicious. Couldn't happen to a nicer er more obnoxious person.
Posted by: john knox | November 12, 2009 at 06:49 PM
Knox - oh my. I really wasn't prepared for that - it was brutal. Starting with the title "A Syllabus of Errors" it goes downhill to this conclusion:
"This book is unworthy of the Cambridge University Press and the
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law."
Posted by: Randy | November 13, 2009 at 09:36 AM
Randy, If it weren't Marci Hamilton and her noxious opinions on the receiving end I would have had the same feeling reading that review that I do when watching a UFC fight where some poor chap gets his arm snapped in half. You think did that really just happen. That's really got to hurt. You sort of want to look away or put your hand over your eyes but still peek between your fingers to see how bad it is.
Posted by: john knox | November 13, 2009 at 10:42 AM
Thank you to john knox for the pointer to the Laycock review. I am a connoisseur of devastating book reviews — the ones where the reviewer doesn't just snipe or mock but just takes a book down bit by bit until there is nothing left. That's about as good as it gets. Academics are way too polite in book reviews, and it's nice to see telling the truth win out over being nice.
Posted by: Skeptical | November 13, 2009 at 04:33 PM
Skeptical, I aim to please. To complete the meal you ought to check her response to Laycock and his response to his response. Call it desert. Section III of his response cuts right to the misdirection of her rejoinder. She should have left well enough alone instead of ducking for cover under "guidelines for civility."
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/assets/pdfs/105/6/hamilton.pdf
http://www.churchstatelaw.com/treatises/GodvstheGavelbyDouglasLaycock.pdf
Posted by: john knox | November 13, 2009 at 05:26 PM