American Lawyer's Litigation Daily updates its earlier coverage (scroll) and includes kind words for our efforts. The WSJ law blog's two recent entries on the controversy provoked a few thoughtful reader comments along with the usual flames and abuse (first, second).
Meanwhile, lame opinion journalism on the story is still being perpetrated, this time in an unsigned entry at the Student Lounge Blog of the L.A. County Bar Association. The entry manages (days after the transcript's release) to ludicrously misrepresent Judge Jacobs' expressed views (see sentence beginning "Essentially, he concludes...") and then triumphantly marches to the conclusion that if the judge declines Chemerinsky's offer of a public debate he will be "essentially conceding" the professor's case. Great logic, guys! I think I'll pick some other highly placed federal judge, launch a grossly unfair attack on him and then, when he demurs, grab more headlines by demanding that he appear in some public place to debate me. When he declines, you'll agree that he's "essentially conceding" my point. That's how it works, right?