- The Latest
- Our Blog
Harold Ickes & Marian Anderson I was just watching a WETA segment on our national parks when I came upon the Marian Anderson story and how the Daughters of the American Revolution refused to let her perform at Constitution Hall, which they owned.
It’s easy to document the degradation of work conditions in the wake of capital’s ascendance. I’ve done so for years, fully expecting that globalization would push the downward convergence of non-college-educated American workers’ living standards to that of the 75% of the global work force now living in the developing world. But I think we are in the midst of a sea change of resistance.
The following is an excerpt from Chapter 8, Autonomy, from Berkshire Beyond Buffett: The Enduring Value of Values; the full text of the chapter, which considers the case for Berkshire’s distinctive trust-based model of corporate governance, can be downloaded free from SSRN here. . . . Berkshire corporate policy strikes a balance between autonomy and authority.
Thanks to Gerard for the nice introduction. Indeed, I am here to rant about bankruptcy, securities, and corporate, mostly. The vineyard lies dormant now (but any offers for it will be considered).
I am pleased to welcome Nicholas Georgakopoulos to CoOp this month. Professor Georgakopoulos is an expert on bankruptcy, securities regulation, and corporations who writes from a law and economics perspective ...
There is a new website: Today in Civil Liberties History, which has five or six events for each day. Each event includes learning materials: books, reports, web sites, Youtube videos, and more. It covers the full range of civil liberties issues: First Amendment, racial justice, reproductive rights, lesbian and gay rights, national security, and more.
Follow: Previous Post FAN 29.1 (First Amendment News) — Florida Bar Joins Petitioner in Urging Court Review of Judicial Elections Case Our Books Recent PostsRecent Comments Current Events Tim Wu for Lt. Governor Constitutional Law FAN 29.
Barry Richard, counsel for Florida Bar As difficult as it is to obtain review in the Supreme Court, sometimes a case comes along that makes it hard for the clerks and their bosses to ignore. Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar may be just such a case as the stars seem to be aligning in favor of the Petitioner, Lanell Williams-Yulee, having her case ruled upon by the Justices.
As I’ve argued in pedantic detail, Prof. Salaita’s hypothetical promissory estoppel claim against the University of Illinois is weak. In the Illinois Court of Claims, even if one can assert estoppel against a state instrumentality, the claim should fail unless the undiscovered facts are radically different from those publicly known.
[W]e decline to carve out from the First Amendment any novel exception. – Chief Justice John Roberts (2010) When we talk about exceptions to the First Amendment’s guaranty of freedom of expression, Justice Frank Murphy’s famous 1942 dictum in Chaplinsky v.
Since my post on Halbig and originalism drew several great comments (including a response by Larry Solum here), I thought would add some clarifying thoughts. My point is that recovering the original public meaning of a legal text is often much harder than people care to admit. Historians are more likely than lawyers to say that the meaning of a past event is indeterminate.
One of the most curious provisions in federal law is 28 U.S.C. Sec. 44(c), which states the following: “While in active service, each circuit judge of the Federal judicial circuit . . . and the chief judge of the Federal judicial circuit, whenever appointed, shall reside within fifty miles of the District of Columbia.
One criticism of originalism in constitutional law is that we cannot always determine with reasonable certainty what the Framers of the 1787 Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Fourteenth Amendment intended or what the public understood those provisions to mean. Nonsense, say defenders of originalism.
The DC Circuit is considering a petition for rehearing en banc in Halbig (the Affordable Care Act case). I have no opinion on what the Court should do, and I think that it’s silly for outsiders to advise judges on a discretionary matter. (In other words, there is no “expertise” on whether to go en banc.
The Law, the Universe, and Everything