- Our Blog
A woman named Grace Choi seems to have come up with a way to 3D print “lipstick, lip gloss, eye shadow, blush, nail polish, brow powder—pretty much everything except foundations and face power” at home. Her company, Mink, uses FDA approved inks (vegetable or edible). The goal is that a consumer could take a picture or using an online image of the makeup, the software would ma ...
Al Bendich, April 5, 2013 Some people make a difference in their lives; some people actually add to the bounty of freedom we call ours; and some people are so modest as to go quietly into the dark of their eternal night. Albert Bendich was one of those rare few. Sadly, Al died this past Monday. Liberty in America is better off because of Al and what he did as a lawyer for th ...
Suppose that a code were made and expressed in language sanctioned by the assent of the courts. – Oliver Wendell Holmes (1870) Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes 46 States & 209 statutes Incredibly, commentators have long overlooked one of Holmes’s greatest contributions to American law, namely his contribution to state statutory law.
I wanted to note Andrew Sullivan’s retirement from blogging, which he announced yesterday. I am a blogger because my CoOp colleagues gave me a chance in 2009. I wanted to become a blogger because of Andrew Sullivan. As a loyal re ...
I’ve posted before about Lyndon Johnson’s blunt tactics with respect to the Supreme Court (talking Justice Arthur Goldberg into leaving to become UN Ambassador, making Ramsey Clark AG to get Tom Clark off the Court, etc.) In 1968, Chief Justice Warren attempted to ...
Burt Neuborne A libertarian and a liberal walk into a bar; the libertarian orders a shot of Kentucky Knob Creek while the liberal orders a glass of Napa Valley Merlot. True, they both like alcohol, but one prefers it with kick. If the metaphor holds true, Professor Burt Neuborne is the Merlot man and First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere is the strengthened spirits man.
Updated: 1-28-15: 2:10 PM, ET Writing in the New York Observer, Sidney Powell began his column this way: “What will it take to produce honest and ethical conduct from our state and federal prosecutors? The Ninth Circuit has a suggestion. Perhaps a perjury prosecution will do it. In fact, that is exactly what should happen when prosecutors affirmatively lie. This case, Baca v.
The Vanderbilt Law Review is pleased to announce the publication of our January 2015 issue: ARTICLES Norman D. Bishara, Kenneth J. Martin, & Randall S. Thomas, An Empirical Analysis of Noncompetition Clauses and Other Restrictive Postemployment Covenants, 68 Vand. L. Rev. 1 (2015). Amanda Frost, Inferiority Complex: Should State Courts Follow Lower Federal Court Preced ...
One of the most persistent self-images of Silicon Valley internet giants is a role as liberators, emancipators, “disintermediators” who’d finally free the creative class from the grips of oligopolistic music labels or duopolistic cable moguls. I chart the rise and fall of the plausibility of that narrative in Chapter 3 of my book.
In today’s New York Magazine, Jonathan Chait has published a tone-deaf article against liberal efforts to call people out for saying or writing offensive things. Chait uses every empty, meaningless phrase it takes to write such an article: “political correctness,” “language police,” “censorship,” and “thought-criminal.
There have been some thoughtful posts recently (by Michael Ramsey and David Bernstein) arguing that PM Netanyahu’s upcoming speech to a Joint Session of Congress without presidential approval violates the Executive Branch’s exclusive prerogative “to receive ambassadors” and conduct foreign policy. I respectfully dissent.
Austin Sarat, Matthew Anderson, and Cathrine O. Frank are the editors of an excellent publication, Law and the Humanities: An Introduction (Cambridge, 2014). Included are a valuable chapter on the origins of the discipline by the three editors, “Three tales of two texts: an introduction to law and the humanities,” by Kathryn Abrams, a section on Ideas of Justice from the bibl ...
In yesterday’s FAN column I posted the comments of thirteen noted First Amendment lawyers and scholars concerning their views of Citizens United, this on the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the case. One of those who read that column was Professor William Van Alstyne, Perkins Professor of Law, Emeritus, Duke Law School and currently emeritus at the William and Mary School of Law.
The answer is “Governor.” The Constitution never refers to the Governor of a State. The phrases used instead are “executive authority” or “executive officer.” I’m not sure why. One possible answer is that at least one state in 1787 did not have a Governor, but instead relied on some form of collective executive. (I still need to research that.
A great deal of attention is given to partisan gerrymandering of congressional and state legislative districts. What receives less attention, though, is the fact that there is a strong norm against gerrymandering within the Electoral College. A state that usually votes one way in presidential elections could be taken over by the other party and change its method of allocating electoral votes.
“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections,” [President Obama] said of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which allowed corporations to donate to political candidates.
Here’s a question that I have about the upcoming same-sex marriage argument. Suppose you are a same-sex couple that lives in one of the circuits that held that there is a constitutional right to same sex marriage and where the cert. petition was denied last Fall. In other words, the judgment is final. Your home state did not legalize same-sex m ...
Why do we have professions? Many economists give a public choice story: guilds of doctors, social workers, etc., monopolize a field by bribing legislators to keep everyone else out of the guild.* Some scholars of legal ethics buy into that story for our field, too. But there is another, older explanation, based on the need for independent judgment and professional autonomy.
The Law, the Universe, and Everything