Some follow-up to my critique of Judge Richard Posner’s shoddy New York Times op-ed:

1. Law professor John McGinnis weighs in with a compatible critique, titled “Posner’s Unjustified Attack on Scalia.” McGinnis is “baffled as to why he [Posner] is stooping to distorting the positions of jurisprudential opponents.”

2. In a Twitter exchange I had with Posner’s co-author, law professor Eric Segall, Segall asserted that “Ed misconstrues our essay possibly due to his Posner vendetta.” (I suppose that McGinnis must have the same “vendetta.”) But in a long series of tweets the only claim Segall ever musters in support of his assertion is that McGinnis and I “both missed” a supposed point that Segall himself ends up conceding that he and Posner never directly made. In any event, his trivial claim, even if it had any merit, would not refute one bit of the five discrete criticisms I presented.

By the way, I told Segall that I would be happy to post on Bench Memos any response that he and Posner would offer. (What a “vendetta” I must be nursing.) Segall politely declined my offer, on the reasonable ground that he would post on another blog “[i]f we were to respond.” I’m not holding my breath waiting for a response.

Update: Segall tells me that he and Posner will respond to me on Monday. I hope that they actually address each of my five points and quote and accurately summarize my arguments. But given Posner’s past performance, I’d bet instead on weasely evasion and a cloud of confusion.