"Just Say No to Terrorism"
"Riot and Arson Over Apparent Koran Desecration in India"
"Political Norms and the Unwritten Constitution"
"Why Punishing Blasphemous Speech That Triggers Murderous Reactions Would Likely Lead to More Deaths"
You really really need to go read those.
The Replica Prop Forum
Very cool site I am also a member of
Showing posts with label volokh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label volokh. Show all posts
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
I find this very disturbing
"Town Plans to Raise Revenue By Combining Drug-Sniffing Dogs With Asset Forfeiture
Orin Kerr • August 22, 2012 11:33 pm
They say a dog is man’s best friend, and the town of Henry, Tennessee is hoping that dogs can help the town raise revenue in tough times:"
Cities and towns are looking at asset forfeiture laws as a checkbook or a credit card for the Police departments. What part of "To Protect and To Serve" do they not understand? Evidently the new motto they adhere to is "To Seize and Disburse"
Orin Kerr • August 22, 2012 11:33 pm
They say a dog is man’s best friend, and the town of Henry, Tennessee is hoping that dogs can help the town raise revenue in tough times:"
Cities and towns are looking at asset forfeiture laws as a checkbook or a credit card for the Police departments. What part of "To Protect and To Serve" do they not understand? Evidently the new motto they adhere to is "To Seize and Disburse"
Monday, May 21, 2012
Nonlegal arguments for upholding the individual mandate.
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy Ilya Somin has written an article with the above title. I will excerpt a bit here, then I suggest you go over there to read it.
"Both sides in the individual mandate litigation have developed a wide range of legal arguments to support their position. Some defenders of the mandate have also emphasized several nonlegal reasons why they believe the Court should uphold the law. These arguments have gotten more emphasis since the Supreme Court oral argument seemed to go badly for the pro-mandate side. The most common are claims that a decision striking down the mandate would damage the Court’s “legitimacy,” that a 5-4 decision striking down the mandate would be impermissibly “partisan,” and that it would be inconsistent with judicial “conservatism.” Even if correct, none of these arguments actually prove that the Court should uphold the mandate as a legal matter. A decision that is perceived as “illegitimate,” partisan, and unconservative can still be legally correct. Conversely, one that is widely accepted, enjoys bipartisan support, and consistent with conservatism can still be wrong. Plessy v. Ferguson and Korematsu are well-known examples of terrible rulings that fit all three criteria at the time they were decided. In addition, all three arguments are flawed even on their own terms. I. A Decision Striking Down the Mandate is Likely to Enhance the Court’s Legitimacy More than it Undermines it. Claims that a decision striking down the mandate will undermine the Court’s “legitimacy” founder on the simple reality that an overwhelmingly majority of the public wants the law to be invalidated. Even a slight 48-44 plurality of Democrats agree, according to a Washington Post/ABC poll. Decisions that damage the Court’s legitimacy tend to be ones that run contrary to majority opinion, such as some of the cases striking down New Deal laws in the 1930s. By contrast, a decision failing to strike down a law that large majorities believe to be unconstitutional can actually damage the Court’s reputation and create a political backlash, as the case of Kelo v. City of New London dramatically demonstrated"
Go RTWT
"Both sides in the individual mandate litigation have developed a wide range of legal arguments to support their position. Some defenders of the mandate have also emphasized several nonlegal reasons why they believe the Court should uphold the law. These arguments have gotten more emphasis since the Supreme Court oral argument seemed to go badly for the pro-mandate side. The most common are claims that a decision striking down the mandate would damage the Court’s “legitimacy,” that a 5-4 decision striking down the mandate would be impermissibly “partisan,” and that it would be inconsistent with judicial “conservatism.” Even if correct, none of these arguments actually prove that the Court should uphold the mandate as a legal matter. A decision that is perceived as “illegitimate,” partisan, and unconservative can still be legally correct. Conversely, one that is widely accepted, enjoys bipartisan support, and consistent with conservatism can still be wrong. Plessy v. Ferguson and Korematsu are well-known examples of terrible rulings that fit all three criteria at the time they were decided. In addition, all three arguments are flawed even on their own terms. I. A Decision Striking Down the Mandate is Likely to Enhance the Court’s Legitimacy More than it Undermines it. Claims that a decision striking down the mandate will undermine the Court’s “legitimacy” founder on the simple reality that an overwhelmingly majority of the public wants the law to be invalidated. Even a slight 48-44 plurality of Democrats agree, according to a Washington Post/ABC poll. Decisions that damage the Court’s legitimacy tend to be ones that run contrary to majority opinion, such as some of the cases striking down New Deal laws in the 1930s. By contrast, a decision failing to strike down a law that large majorities believe to be unconstitutional can actually damage the Court’s reputation and create a political backlash, as the case of Kelo v. City of New London dramatically demonstrated"
Go RTWT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)