The Intrigue Continues at UCI

I reported earlier on the quickly fluctuating situation at the University of California at Irvine and their decision to hire...and then fire law professor Erwin Chemerinski as their new law school dean. The LA Times offers more details on the decision, and how under pressure UCI is trying to undo the damage:

UC Irvine officials on Friday were attempting to broker a deal to once again hire liberal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as dean of its fledging law school, just three days after its chancellor set off a national furor by dumping him. ...

An agreement would be an extraordinary development after Chemerinsky contended this week that Drake succumbed to political pressure from conservatives and sacked him because of his outspoken liberal positions. The flap threatened to derail the 2009 opening of the law school and prompted some calls for Drake's resignation.

Also Friday, details emerged about the criticism of Chemerinsky that the university received in the days before Drake rescinded the job offer, including from California Chief Justice Ronald M. George, who criticized Chemerinsky's grasp of death penalty appeals. Also, a group of prominent Orange County Republicans and Los Angeles County Supervisor Mike Antonovich wanted to derail the appointment.

Drake has insisted that Chemerinsky didn't lose the dean's position because of his politics, saying that it was only because he expressed himself in a polarizing way.

UCI clearly mishandled this, but I'm hoping Erwin turns them down on the offer. For one thing they seem to be making the offer contingent on him keeping his mouth closed on controversial issues, and while that might actually benefit us all, it's not a good precedent. How many conservatives would then be silenced in the same manner?

Secondly, Erwin is not only a lefty, but a highly partisan one. An ideological lefty will make decisions based on his politics, but will also show signs of common sense now and again. A partisan lefty will make whatever decision will bring about victory for his side, regardless of how much sense it makes. I have to put Erwin in the latter category based on two cases (and I'm sure there are more).

First of all and most recently, he chose to represent Valerie Plame in her lawsuit against President Bush and Vice President Cheney in the bogus CIA leak case. Everybody, including Erwin, knew that case had no merit and yet he persisted in attempting to prosecute it. That decision was not based on common sense and logic, or even good legal scholarship.

Secondly there was the famous "butterfly" ballot in Palm Beach County, FL. Thanks to confusion caused by a Democrat-designed ballot which apparently resulted in some old people voting for Pat Buchanan instead of Al Gore, the Gore campaign lost a good number of votes in Palm Beach and therefore lost Florida and the presidency. I can clearly remember hearing Erwin and his "Smart Guys" partner John Eastman talking with Hugh Hewitt about this situation and what should be done about it.

Eastman, a conservative from Chapman Law School, stated the obvious; the election's over and other than coming up with a better design next time, you can't go back and have a "do-over". Erwin stated that a special election should be held just in Palm Beach County and only for the office of president. That suggestion completely flew in the face of fairness, not to mention election law, and was one that only a partisan could suggest because had that been done, the entire national election would have been left in the hands of a few liberal voters in Palm Beach and it would have handed the election to Gore. To Erwin, the ends justified the means, and that's the very definition of a partisan.

For all I know Erwin could be a fine law school dean, but he is as partisan a lefty as you'll find in the legal world and I just don't see how he could keep his politics out of the classroom.