Jump to content

Talk:Alex Kozinski

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NPOV?

[edit]

I noticed that most of this article is simply copied from this source: [1]. Now, even Judge Kozinski descibes this site as a 'fanpage'. Some phrases amount to an unbalanced praise of the Judge, without giving links to sources in the press or elsewhere. Like many other people, I dunno much about Kozinski, so who is it who thinks his writing is "clear" and "humorous"? Maybe it's just the author of 'notabug'? Imho this article needs some editing, not at least because of copyright issues. Gray62 16:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the summary of Kozinski's dissent "This opinion, that correct proceedings were more important than preventing a judicial error that would result in an execution" is an oversimplification. Kozinski was refering to what is within the power of the court--and the supreme court agreed. From the tone of the paragraph, it takes a very close reading to realize that the "grave abuse of discretion" the Supremes were talking about was not commited by Kozinski but the majority. Also I doubt the fact that many of Thompson's accusers were inmates applies to appellate jurisdiction here unless this fact was concealed from the jury. I don't feel qualified to rewrite this section but someone should. 12.159.72.39 (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign contributions

[edit]

I'm wondering about the encyclopedicness of the external link posted by anonymous user User:68.173.19.193 that links to a page showing the political contributions made by the subject of the article. The anon has evenhandedly posted the equivalent link on numerous biographical articles of persons both on the left and the right (e.g. Molly Ivins, Robert McNamara, Theodore Olson, Alex Kozinski, and several others), but despite saucing both the goose and the gander having these links in the articles doesn't seem right. Yes, it's factual; yes, it's verifiable; yes, it's interesting; but it still seems like a sly bit of POV, particularly for each individual article viewed in isolation. I haven't removed any of the links but I'm curious how others see this.

I've posted this question on the talk pages of all four articles mentioned above in hopes that a wider spectrum of editors will see and comment. -EDM 05:03, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Religious Faith

[edit]
  • What is the religious faith of judge Alex Kozinski? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeDIt (talk • contribs) 01:37, October 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • He's Jewish, though I don't believe he's particularly observant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.232.225.54 (talk) 22:03, January 25, 2006 (UTC)

"Good afternoon, flower of my heart"

[edit]

I've removed this unexplained quote from the "Trivia" section, where it appeared in parentheses next to the Dating Game item (diff). If anyone knows the relevance of this Buddy Holly lyric to Kozinski, please add it back. --zenohockey 02:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I considered removing it myself but could work up the resolve to do it. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 04:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oh I see... he says it in the short clip of the dating game hiding under [1]. - the.crazy.russian τ ç ë 04:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks?

[edit]

Should there be a section listing law clerks to Federal Circuit Judges as there is a page for supreme court clerks. A "Notable Clerks" category makes sense to me as part of a biographical article. Its worth mentioning the pupils.

Another important reason to include clerks for this particular judge is that Kozinski has a reputation for working his clerks very, very hard, and as a result they have an extremely high chance of a subsequent Supreme Court clerkship. There are quite a handful of Kozinski clerks in the current crop of clerks for the Supreme Court, remarkable for a single jurist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.63.52 (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of notable clerks: United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Dean of Northwestern Law School Daniel B. Rodriguez, Susman Godfrey partner Harry P. Susman, UCLA Law Professor and publisher of the blog The Volokh Conspiracy Eugene Volokh, Munger, Tolles & Olson partner Mary Ann Todd, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Mark A. Perry, and Sidley Austin partner Jacqueline Cooper.

User:Bbb23 states this was not noteworthy and not sufficiently sourced. Every website linked explicitly states that the person was a Kozinski clerk. A judge's former clerks can provide background on a particular judge and provide insight to students looking to apply for clerkships. Since I'm new here, I'll defer to the wiki editors on whether or not to add this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.87.246 (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming here. Assuming that listing Kozinski's law clerks is sufficiently noteworthy to mention, I think you can source them in two different ways. First, if they have a Wikipedia article that says they were Kozinski's clerk and that statement is sourced, that would be sufficient. I would wikilink the article and add the same source to the Kozinski page as supports it on the clerk's page. The other way would be to someone on the outside, not just because they were a clerk, but because someone thought that was important enough to comment on. In other words, you'd need a secondary source if they don't have a wiki page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding and offering guidance! I believe firm websites are typically written by the HR department of law firms (as opposed to the attorneys themselves)--not sure if this would count as the required third party. The HR departments tend to add notable accomplishments of their partners/associates, such as clerking for a respected judge, to establish additional credibility of the attorney. Again, I'm not sure of the threshold for noteworthiness on wikipedia so I'll defer to your judgment. (It seems to me that the wiki community may have established the noteworthiness of clerkships since the people who currently have wikipedia articles of their own lists clerkships with Kozinski on their articles.) I just saw a request for clerks on this talk page so I spoke to a professor at my school who was an ex-clerk to get the names of some of Kozinski's prominent clerks. If it is noteworthy, hopefully someone else with more wiki experience than I have will be able to source it correctly. Thanks again for the clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.91.9.77 (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry

[edit]

Kozinski, 57, petitioned on June 13, 2008, an ethics panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to investigate his own conduct. He asked Chief Justice John Roberts to assign the inquiry to a panel of judges outside the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction. Also, he admitted that that his son, Yale, and his family or friends may have been responsible to have posted to the site, http://alex.kozinski.com. Circuit judges’ appointment is for lifetime and they can only be dismissed by Congress, but they can be censured by fellow judges.nytimes.com, California: Judge Calls for Inquiry Into His Conduct Over Web Siteap.google.com, Calif judge wants panel to probe his porn postings--Florentino floro (talk) 11:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC

[edit]

I'm trying to bring perspective to noted cases, some of which are getting way too much coverage per WP:UNDUE. For instance, a couple seem to be in there simply because someone thought his writing was clever, and not so much for the import of the case in his career. I moved this one here for discussion:

In Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC,[1] Kozinski, alluding to Andy Warhol's famous quip, referred to "Andy Warhol's prediction that everyone would eventually enjoy a trillion or so nanoseconds of fame." A trillion nanoseconds equates to 16 minutes and 40 seconds.

I'm trying to keep recentism from taking over the article, too. Jokestress (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kozinski's notability as a judge stem as much from his clever writing as it does from the actual judicial content of his opinions. Those examples shouldn't be stricken. Maybe it would be a good idea to have a section on his reputation in this regard, with examples relegated there. But they shouldn't be removed. TJRC (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd include the Mattell v. MCA there, too. Pretty funny if you ask me, as is the "judicial hottie" stuff, but I question its encyclopedic value beyond mentions. When I got here, this article read like it was written by a fanboy, right down to the trivia section. Jokestress (talk) 15:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC, No. 04-56916, slip op. 5709, 5713 n.1

Says he was "a committed communist" in adolescence

[edit]

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36727.html

Reason: What about the statism in Romania? How did you react to that?
Kozinski: "I was a very committed communist when I was there. I believed in communism, and I thought it was the wave of the future. When my parents applied to leave, I thought it was a good thing because I’d be able to educate the workers of the West that they were being enslaved by capitalist exploiters. When we arrived in Vienna, I discovered bubblegum and chocolate. These things were nonexistent in Romania, and I immediately became a capitalist. I was easily bought off." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.142.132 (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LA Times controversy

[edit]

Several users made good faith edits, adding a blurb about Lawrence Lessig's thoughts on the controversy, with references. These edits were reverted without any discussion. This is a bit upsetting.

I have restored the text and added some more. If the LA Times' description is included, it's also necessary to present another expert's view as well, especially given the nature of the description. Frankly, the LA Times article was a deliberate smear set up by a disgruntled litigant, as Lessig points out. If you go look up the videos and photos mentioned, you'll find that most if not all are the humorous sorts of viral videos and pictures that make their way round the blogosphere. The Times describes naked women painted to look like cows. While they are naked, that is not immediately obvious, and is not the central theme. The Times also mentions a "transsexual striptease slideshow," which I have not personally seen, but also seems to be humor rather than pornography. There's also the donkey allegedly "cavorting" with a naked man in a field: this definitely implies bestiality/pornography. Again, the video is clearly humor (the man is apparently terrified, running away from a donkey with an erection; there is no "cavorting").

I really think if something needs to be cut down, it's the Times description. It's really absurd, and if you go look up the videos, you'll see why.

The person who edited also acknowledged that Lessig is extremely credible and notable, but did not think it was appropriate to include the paragraph. Why is the Times' opinion more credible than Lessig's in this case? --aciel (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because the Times, in its investigative role for the benefit of public knowledge, is more believable than the opinion of a lawyer. Ad hominem attacks on a high profile judge can be put down to a higher standard of personal ethics required, demanded, and sworn to be upheld in the judicial branch of government in our system of democracy. In any case, the report certainly belongs in the article. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lessig is a Stanford University professor--a scholar, not simply a lawyer. You're also neglecting the true role of a business such as a newspaper, which is to make money. I think if we turn on Fox "News" we can easily see that just calling yourself investigative does not make it so. I'm not suggesting the Times is on the same level as Fox, just pointing out that it's overly idealistic to always give the newspaper the benefit of the doubt. I'd also like to point to the relevant article, Los Angeles Times#Controversies. --aciel (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, the last rollback was NOT vandalism, just not in good faith. I hit the wrong button. --aciel (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot-created subpage

[edit]

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Alex Kozinski was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daubert - Kozinski on expert testimony

[edit]

Why is there no section on Kozinski's opinion on Daubert (on remand from Supreme Court)? That case set important standards for assessing expert testimony. 141.166.227.7 (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie Girl

[edit]

I have a feeling this is the guy who presided over the review of the Barbie Girl case between Mattel and Europop band Aqua. The case ended with "The parties are advised to chill". Could somebody double check this and add it in a suitable location. —Sladen (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bratz Case

[edit]

It would be wrong for the article not to mention Kozinski's decision in the Bratz case. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/07/22/09-55673.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by RafaelRGarcia (talk • contribs) 06:30, July 23, 2010

I don't think it's worth adding. It's not that significant of a case. I already added it in the Bratz article, a context in which it's obviously very material. But it doesn't seem important enough to note in this article. 15:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJRC (talk • contribs)

Milke Case

[edit]

There is no information about the Milke Case, and there are no links — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.106.216 (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2014‎ (UTC)

IP is apparently referring to [2]. TJRC (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Alex Kozinski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alex Kozinski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Alex Kozinski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:22, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian?

[edit]

I reverted the deletion of the category, "libertarian." I've been seeing article about Kozinski for almost five years and I'm guessing half describe him as a libertarian. I put his name and the term into my browser and got 12,500 hits. One of the top five was the lede from the NY Times article that called him that.

"White v. Samsung" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect White v. Samsung and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 31#White v. Samsung until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DocFreeman24 (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alex_Kozinski&oldid=1208035338"