One of his finest accomplishments (and at sixty-five he’s still busy as judge and legal scholar) is his thoughtful defense of exacting standards for expert studies at trial.
To be a defender of exacting standards requires that one be an opponent of junk science, crackpot theories, and shoddy studies. That’s the Whitewater aspect of this: Americans can and should do better than the low standards local publications set for policymaking and policy studies.
In the audio clip above, Judge Kozinski speaks (last fall) to the Cato Institute about the need for sound reasoning in criminal matters. Early in the clip, he mentions a motion – a Daubert motion, following Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) – used to exclude expert testimony that falls below an acceptable standard as Federal Rule of Evidence 702 requires. Daubert was a civil case, and it’s Judge Kozinski’s point that in criminal matters a Daubert standard in favor of reason – and against junk science – hasn’t been applied as often it should be.
We could use a Daubert standard for local government projects around here; even Daubert-lite would be a big improvement.