Why did the judge announce his “religious inclinations”?

[rug]

By Will Baude
November 7

Today the Seventh Circuit decided a case about Northwestern University’s decision to cease dealings with a campus rabbi after several underage drinking incidents. The opinion is by Judge Posner, so it is short, interesting, and starts with links to extraneous material on Wikipedia and Youtube. (Thanks to Chaim Saiman for the link.)

It also contains a strange concurrence by Judge Bauer, which reads in its entirety:

I cheerfully concur in this enlightening opinion. The background and various nuances of the religious groups discussed, or alluded to, are not taken from the record of the case but are both enlightening and, I confess, entertaining. Since the result meets my legal and religious inclinations, I have no reason not to endorse the dissertation and ruling and therefore I do.

This is not the first time Judge Bauer has written such a concurrence. Consider this one (pointed out to me on Twitter by Joel Flaxman):

I join the opinion insofar as it affirms the grant of summary judgment to the defendants. But as Judge Posner points out, many lawyers decided against medical school because of lack of interest in the clinical aspects of medicine or a deeper interest in the less scientific aspects of law. I was one of those who chose law as opposed to medicine.

I think the opinion made the necessary legal point when it said that the record shows that summary judgment was clearly the right decision. That’s where I would stop.

So I get the general idea that the more recent concurrence is meant to contrast with the previous one, with Judge Bauer explaining why this time he’s okay with a tangential discussion in a Posner opinion when he wasn’t before. But I still can’t figure out exactly what Judge Bauer means by saying “the result meets my legal and religious inclinations.” Nor am I really sure why those religious inclinations — as distinct from his legal inclinations — ought to decide whether he joins an opinion in full.`

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/11/07/why-did-the-judge-announce-his-religious-inclinations/

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014%2FD11-06%2FC%3A14-1055%3AJ%3APosner%3Aaut%3AT%3AfnOp%3AN%3A1450115%3AS%3A0

Because he's a Nixon/Ford appointee? Because he just doesn't give a shit any more?

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=122&cid=23&ctype=ac&instate=07

[cbayer]

1. This judge is 88 years old.

Now, I don't want to be ageist, but he's been in this seat for 40 years.

According to wiki, he is known for saying odd things in his opinions. Like:

"This spicy case finds its origin in several shipments of Jamaican sweet peppers."

and

"This case proves the old adage, 'If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.'"

Odd people tend to get odder with age, imo.

[rug]

2. I think I'll vote that he simply doesn't give a shit any more.

[cbayer]

3. I think you are most likely right.

[merrily]

7. The issue is not simply age. Justice Stevens retired at 90. Ginsburg is, I think, 81.

If a Justice or judge does not suffer from dementia or Alzheimer's, age is not usually an issue.

[cbayer]

8. This was somewhat tongue in cheek.

I realize that people can work well into their 80's and even 90's. I have two parents in their 80's still working.

I was looking for a reason he would say something that made so little sense. Prevalence of dementia increases with age and the incidence of AD is 45% in those over the age of 85, and perhaps it is an issue.

But again, no offense intended. I was merely speculating.

[shenmue]

4. It meets his religious inclinations?

The fuck?

[Fred Sanders]

5. Juedo-Christian theology clearly does not condone drinking with underage girls, even if clergy?

This had to go to court to be confirmed?

[cbayer]

6. The rabbi was suing the school for cutting off their relationship

with him and his group.

He was found to be having parties in his building that included drinking and underage participants. He apparently continued after being warned.

I don't get this judge's statement, unless it has something to do with this being a jewish group.