Comments on: April 2 roundup

By: Yale adopts submissive posture in Title-IX-vs.-speech case

Yale adopts submissive posture in Title-IX-vs.-speech case — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 12:04:08 +0000

[…] here and (citing Wendy Kaminer) […]

By: April 10 roundup

April 10 roundup — Sun, 10 Apr 2011 12:18:22 +0000

[…] Civil libertarian Wendy Kaminer on feminism and the Yale speech complaint [Atlantic, earlier] […]

By: robert

robert — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 20:56:17 +0000

Re: the gun ownership proposal.

There were similar laws enacted that mandated “AIDS Tests” (i.e., HIV Antibody tests) on people charged with–but not convicted of–sex crimes. Some of these laws still stand. There’s no justification, medical or legal, that I can think of for doing this.

It used to be that the only ones who could get away with guilty-until-proven-innocent was the IRS. That seems to be expanding….

By: GregS

GregS — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 15:53:51 +0000

RE: Schumer: ban gun ownership by persons arrested but not convicted of drug offenses .

I seem to remember that there used to be a clause in the U.S. constitution that said something to the effect that no one could be deprived of their constitutional rights without the due process of law – that is, they had to be convicted of a crime before their rights could be taken away. Does anyone know when this clause was repealed? Because it must have been if a U.S. Senator thinks a proposal like this one is constitutional.

By: wfjag

wfjag — Mon, 04 Apr 2011 13:06:04 +0000

RE: Schumer: ban gun ownership by persons arrested but not convicted of drug offenses .

Finally, something I can agree with Chucky about. But, why stop there? Anyone arrested, but not convicted, of drug offenses should also be banned from voting. As long as we’re stripping Constitutional rights based on only an arrest, why stop at the 2d Amendment. Might as well strip 14th Amendment, and 1st Amendment, and, . . .

By: John Fembup

John Fembup — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 12:25:02 +0000

The ear-candle magistrate is named Waxse?

Sure and it’s the eponomy !

By: Beldar

Beldar — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 06:29:15 +0000

(I should have said “consistently winning.” By 1988, my friend and one-time colleague Tom Phillips had been elected Chief Justice, and he dissented in Lucas.)

By: Beldar

Beldar — Sun, 03 Apr 2011 06:20:28 +0000

Walter, you may recall from the Prop 12 tort reform debate in Texas in 2003 that an amendment to the Texas state constitution was needed, rather than just a new law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. That was because in Lucas v. United States, 757 S.W.2d 687 (Tex. 1988), the Texas Supreme Court — the infamous “Sixty Minutes” court, before the GOP started winning state-wide judicial elections — had interpreted the “open courts” provision of the Texas constitution to displace the legislature’s power to enact damages caps. Basically Lucas had interpreted “everyone gets a day in court” — an innocuous proposition with which no one disagrees, so it had never before been litigated — to mean “everyone has to have a chance at a bonanza!”