Gorsuch nomination roundup

More on the nominee, starting with a Washington Post profile:

  • How to read last year’s Garland precedent? [David Post, Jonathan Adler]
  • Gorsuch “consistently applied established First Amendment protections” [Adam Liptak, New York Times quoting Gregg Leslie of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press]
  • We’ve earlier linked Cato podcasts on the nomination with Ilya Shapiro and Andrew Grossman and now here’s a somewhat more skeptical one featuring Ilya Somin;
  • On product liability [Eric Wolff, Perkins Coie]
  • California Federation of Teachers, explaining its opposition to the nomination, dismisses his constitutionalism as devotion to a document “drafted to protect the interests of white slave owners” (via Amy Alkon);
  • “Follow the law, as judges are supposed to do, and you’ll get tarred as a supporter of criminals” when Nancy Pelosi et al. go low: [Eugene Volokh on gun cases U.S. v. Games-Perez and U.S. v. Reese]

Civics 101 podcast: “How to Amend the Constitution”

I joined Virginia Prescott for episode 4 of the interesting Civics 101 podcast series, hosted by New Hampshire Public Radio, this one covering the Article V constitutional amendment process. You can also find it at NPR and AudioBoom. Description:

It’s been 25 years since the last constitutional amendment was ratified. How hard is it to change our most sacred document? We discover that there are not one, but two ways to amend the constitution – and one of them has never been used. Walter Olson, senior fellow of the Cato Institute explains that the founders didn’t exactly spell the process out clearly.

February 22 roundup

  • “Freedom of Association Takes Another Hit” as Washington high court rules against florist Barronelle Stutzman [Roger Pilon, Ilya Shapiro, earlier]
  • Aside from chipping away at the rule of law, job preservation via presidential threats may not work well as an economic development strategy [David Henderson]
  • NYC cops shot burglar in rear end and now he wants $10 million over that [New York Post]
  • Granting certiorari in Blackman v. Gascho case would allow Supreme Court to tackle fee abuses in class actions [Ted Frank, Daniel Fisher, earlier]
  • Will competing versions be introduced of FADA, the religious-exemption First Amendment Defense Act? [Jessica Yarvin/PBS, I’m quoted; my take on the first introduced version of the bill]
  • I talked Sunday with Maryland-based blog radio hosts Ryan Miner and Eric Beasley on topics that included the Gorsuch nomination, Chevron deference, doctor-assisted suicide, and redistricting reform [BlogTalkRadio, one of my longer audio interviews at 1:12:00]

Washington, D.C. March 2: Book forum on business and the Roberts Court

At 4 p.m. on March 2 — that’s Thursday of next week — I’m hosting a Cato book forum for Jonathan Adler to discuss his new book, Business and the Roberts Court (Oxford University Press, 2016). Commenting will be Andrew Pincus of Mayer Brown. Details and registration here:

Is the Supreme Court “pro-business?” That’s a claim often heard from critics of the Roberts Court, now circulating once more amid a likely battle over the confirmation of a successor to the late Justice Antonin Scalia. But what does the claim mean? Does it charge the Court with ruling wrongly in favor of business litigants, with shaping legal doctrine in unprincipled ways, or with something else? In Business and the Roberts Court, Professor Jonathan Adler assembles essays from scholars who consider how and whether Roberts Court decisions can or cannot be fairly deemed favorable to business. One pattern is that this Court follows doctrinal commitments — in areas from free speech to federalism to employment and securities law — that sometimes though not always coincide with the interests of producers and employers in the national economy. As the Senate considers President Trump’s nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the vacant seat on the Court, join us for a book forum on one of the most important elements of Chief Justice John Roberts’ rule — and Antonin Scalia’s legacy.

If you can’t make it in person, you can watch live online.

Workplace roundup

  • Bad idea keeps spreading: “Philadelphia to Prohibit Asking Job Applicants About Their Prior Wage History” [Ford Harrison] Bill introduced in Maryland legislature [Danielle Gaines, Frederick News-Post on HB 398]
  • “New York (State and City) Imposes New Rules for Freelancers, State Contracts” [Daniel Schwartz]
  • On the minimum wage, lame reporting and motivated reasoning make war on Econ 101 [David Boaz and Ryan Bourne, Cato]
  • In final Obama days, EEOC finalizes rules toughening affirmative action requirements for federal agency employers regarding workers with disabilities [Joe Seiner, Workplace Prof]
  • Study: Indictments of union officials correlate with close election outcomes [Mitch Downey via Tyler Cowen]
  • “Ohio again tries to restore sanity to its bonkers employment discrimination law” [Jon Hyman]