Talk:Erwin Chemerinsky

message: No one is an "expert" in law -- only a scholar or a study.  I changed it in the first sentence.  --Jophus00 (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I was one of Prof. Chemerinsky's students shortly before the ballot measure was proposed and I paid attention to news coverage.  I would remember any real focus on him in the press, so I can confidently say there wasn't any.  I think this passage (and others in the article) was written by someone with an ax to grind.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.131.156.68 (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert 

message: Erwin is the most honest man I've ever met.  Unfortunately, that may be a disqualification for a politically-appointed position.Dugong.is.good.tucker (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Supreme Court

message: ===Clause C affair===
I have removed the following section. It gives undue weight to a minor incident, in an article that does not give similar coverage to other positions held by the subject. This is not permitted by Wikipedia policy, and rightly so.
It also has the demerit of being largely unsourced. In particular, there is no sourcing of "much press attention in California".
I propose that this section not be reinstated until it is significantly reduced, and tightly sourced. If neither condition is met, it should remain absent.
:In 1995 and 1996, Chemerinsky, together with Laurie Levenson of Loyola Law School, received much press attention in California for their controversial contention that California Proposition 209, a ballot measure then before the voters (now Article 1, Section 31, of the California constitution) prohibiting public institutions from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, or ethnicity, would repeal protections against sex discrimination already existing in California's laws and state constitution.
:Chemerinsky stated that clause (c) of Proposition 209 would have "a devastating impact on programs to remedy discrimination against women and minorities. Gains of the past few years will be erased and additional progress will be unlikely..."
:He also said "Clause C [of Proposition 209] creates the outrageous possibility that the protection of women's constitutional rights will be greatly weakened under the California Constitution".
:These claims were the basis for a significant portion of the TV and print advertising against the ballot measure.
:Law review articles pointed out that given its wording, clause (c) could not conceivably affect any other legal or constitutional measures which might already prohibit sex discrimination.  
:Critics viewed Chemerinsky’s interpretation as a gross misreading of clause (c), and doubted that—as law professors—he and Levenson could actually have believed it themselves.  The argument was viewed as an unscrupulous effort to get around the fact that the ballot measure's actual substance was quite popular.  Although Chemerinsky made numerous media appearances in which he advanced his novel interpretation of clause (c), he did not write any law review articles in which he explained his analysis.
:Clause (c) reads, “Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”  Proponents of the ballot measure stated that the purpose of this clause was simply to make sure that Proposition 209 itself was not read, for example, to mandate "supervision by men of girls' locker rooms" .  They pointed out that given its restrictive phrasing "nothing...in this section", as a matter of logic it could not limit the effect of any other pre-existing laws or articles of the state constitution.   
:In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, and it was upheld against various federal court challenges.  Since its adoption, there do not appear to have been any court decisions in which clause (c) was  the basis for any changes in protections against sex discrimination in California, as Chemerinsky and Levenson had predicted.
Grace Note (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clause C affair 

message: I have removed the following section. It gives undue weight to a minor incident, in an article that does not give similar coverage to other positions held by the subject. This is not permitted by Wikipedia policy, and rightly so.
It also has the demerit of being largely unsourced. In particular, there is no sourcing of "much press attention in California".
I propose that this section not be reinstated until it is significantly reduced, and tightly sourced. If neither condition is met, it should remain absent.
:In 1995 and 1996, Chemerinsky, together with Laurie Levenson of Loyola Law School, received much press attention in California for their controversial contention that California Proposition 209, a ballot measure then before the voters (now Article 1, Section 31, of the California constitution) prohibiting public institutions from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, or ethnicity, would repeal protections against sex discrimination already existing in California's laws and state constitution.
:Chemerinsky stated that clause (c) of Proposition 209 would have "a devastating impact on programs to remedy discrimination against women and minorities. Gains of the past few years will be erased and additional progress will be unlikely..."
:He also said "Clause C [of Proposition 209] creates the outrageous possibility that the protection of women's constitutional rights will be greatly weakened under the California Constitution".
:These claims were the basis for a significant portion of the TV and print advertising against the ballot measure.
:Law review articles pointed out that given its wording, clause (c) could not conceivably affect any other legal or constitutional measures which might already prohibit sex discrimination.  
:Critics viewed Chemerinsky’s interpretation as a gross misreading of clause (c), and doubted that—as law professors—he and Levenson could actually have believed it themselves.  The argument was viewed as an unscrupulous effort to get around the fact that the ballot measure's actual substance was quite popular.  Although Chemerinsky made numerous media appearances in which he advanced his novel interpretation of clause (c), he did not write any law review articles in which he explained his analysis.
:Clause (c) reads, “Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”  Proponents of the ballot measure stated that the purpose of this clause was simply to make sure that Proposition 209 itself was not read, for example, to mandate "supervision by men of girls' locker rooms" .  They pointed out that given its restrictive phrasing "nothing...in this section", as a matter of logic it could not limit the effect of any other pre-existing laws or articles of the state constitution.   
:In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, and it was upheld against various federal court challenges.  Since its adoption, there do not appear to have been any court decisions in which clause (c) was  the basis for any changes in protections against sex discrimination in California, as Chemerinsky and Levenson had predicted.
Grace Note (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clause C affair

message: The article footnotes Chemerinsky's LA Times editorial on the Irvine 11, but omits the reply by Mark Levine. I have corrected that. 
Chemerinsky is portrayed as a protector of the free exchange of ideas, yet there was no 'exchange of ideas' at Oren's presentation. Unlike John Yoo at Chapman just months earlier, this was not a debate. And departing from the agenda, there was no Q&A. Sit there and shut up does not equate to a free exchange of ideas, and an eight second interruption does not constitute a disruption, even if a lawyer argues that it does. (76.180.164.161 ( Martin |  talk • contribs  02:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Irvine 11:  a one-sided presentation, as is, I assume,  the rest of the piece 

message: *text said: Chemerinsky has been an outspoken defender of freedom of speech, defending it from the Heckler's veto.
*changed to: Chemerinsky has defended freedom of speech from the Heckler's veto.
*actually closer is: Chemerinsky says campus speakers should be protected from students' shouts.
removing the puffery ( Martin |  talk • contribs  04:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: outspoken defender  

message: I listened to several lectures by Professor Chemrinsky and he is a brilliant person.  He should be nominated to the Supreme court, he would be the liberal lion that the court sorely needs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.171.201 (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomination for Supreme Court 

message: Once this book has a WP article, then wikilink it.  But for now, assuming that it will be notable is WP:CRYSTAL, right?  Add ISBN data, etc., if you like.  But for now WP:RED should apply.--S. Rich (talk) 13:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I used to have your position. However, there are innumberable instances in the Wikipedia articles of academics, of links in the Bibliography to the books, often to the Google Books page for the linked book.Dogru144 (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Conservative Assault on the Constitution 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Erwin Chemerinsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090203211301/http://www.law.duke.edu:80/fac/chemerinsky/ to http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/chemerinsky/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Erwin Chemerinsky. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090215074738/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/local/la-me-uci13sep13,1,1474059,full.story to http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uci13sep13,1,1474059,full.story
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090215074745/http://www.latimes.com:80/news/local/la-me-uci18sep18,0,3167475.story?coll=la-home-center to http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-uci18sep18,0,3167475.story?coll=la-home-center
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Erwin Chemerinsky. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029170502/http://www.ocblog.net/ocblog/2007/09/statement-fro-1.html to http://www.ocblog.net/ocblog/2007/09/statement-fro-1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There's been a slow-mo edit war, with 24.161.120.233 repeatedly restoring "controversial" in the first sentence over the reverts of other editors. I'm starting this section so the IP editor can attempt to build consensus for their change. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes IP, come on, you've been at this for almost a year now, can you please discuss before trying to add material that may not be suitable per WP:BLP. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 07:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: IP engaged on their own talkpage later on, see User talk:24.161.120.233#September 2022. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 01:19, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversial