Second, no one said anything “snide” about your law school’s con law program. My snideness was directed at the schlock who belittled Coulter’s legal education while obviously not knowing a f’n thing about it. I don’t think even he was dumb enough to diss her legal education if he had known where it came from.

Third, if you had read my entry more carefully before commenting you’d have noticed that “actually” I never claimed was editor in chief of the Michigan Law Review, any more than I claimed she went to Yale or clerked for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.

Fourth, last, and least, “settled” was tongue in cheek. I’d have picked Boalt over Michigan anyway, mostly because of the climate, but also because of the huge difference in tuition at the time. But there’s no question affirmative action pushed me down further on both institutions’ waiting lists than I otherwise would have been. It just turned out that in Boalt’s case it resulted in a minor inconvenience, while in Michigan’s it spelled the difference between being admitted and not being admitted. Sorry if hearing the truth “offends” you.

Congratulations on missing four points out of four. It takes a special talent to do that.

Becoming an articles editor on the Michigan Law Review is no small task, however. But that doesn’t necessarily mean Coluter’s extremely well-versed in constitutional law. While much legal academic writing addresses constitutional issues, many law review articles – Michigan’s included – publish articles on international law and other areas in which the American constitution isn’t very prominent.

Full disclosure I’m a white male student at Michigan, and I’m more offended by yet another person blaming their rejection on our affirmative action program than I am about a snide comment on our Constitutional Law curriculum. (I am left-handed, but I’ve been told that did not grant me extra consideration). Further, I was rejected from Boalt, but from what I’ve learned about the school during the application process and as a student here, I’d say you haven’t settled at all. It’s a fine school, and you should be proud to go (or have gone) there.

Agendas are a bad thing in blogs? ok. Sorry for your time.

I’m still not understanding your problem in reading the websites. Isn’t one of them a redacted version of coulter’s book?

Doesn’t one of them go into the problems with the citations?

What else do you need here? Is this much handholding normally required to show you things?

Give you examples of lack of substantiation by Coulter. I don’t understand why this is so hard.

‘In this case, “common knowledge” means little more than “I think X, and so do most people I know, so why should I have to prove anything?”’

Ok, what is your estimation of how Coulter ranks in terms of ‘scholarship’?

Congratulations, Actus, you’ve just proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are at least two bloggers out there who don’t like Ann Coulter any more than you do. I’ll be generous: here are two more. It still doesn’t do a f’n thing to back up your claims, however..

I put the link in my name. I put a different one this time. Sorry. I thought it was pretty common knowledge what Ann’s M.O. is: Outrageous lines, and not much backup. Maybe she got tired of all that cite checking as L.Rev. editor.