Replies

Yeah it is.

Here's a gem from him. Remember the case from the UK about ultra-hazardous activities incurring strict liability, and the man-made lake that spilled through some coal mines and destroyed a neighbor's property (I'm not about to go look up the name, I hated that class)?

This was the dialog he reported:

Prof: "How would you rule on that case?"
HRC: "I would rule for the miners, of course." [Prof.'s comment to the class as he was telling this story: "Now, keep in mind that there were no miners involved in the case, only two landowners."]
Prof: "And why is that?"
HRC: "Because I'll ALWAYS take the side of the workers!"

The best part of this little story is all the communists in the "public interest" program that were in my section were angry at HRC for "selling out" and becoming a Clinton.

Now, this professor is a total commie as well, but he is a nice guy, at least. I liked him, as long as I ignored things he did like sign the "law professors to impeach Bush" letters and the like.

For an example of what he's about, check out this article of his: "A Critique of Torts" 37 UCLA L.Rev. 785 (1990), which is expanded in the book "The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique" - the whole thing is pretty, well, Californian.