- Sure, let’s subvert sound mortgage accounting in the name of energy efficiency. What could go wrong? [Mark Calabria, Kevin Funnell]
- California: fireworks shows are “development” and coastal commission can ban ’em [Laer Pearce, Daily Caller]
- Trial lawyers’ lobbyist: I got Cuomo to bash Chevron in Ecuador case [John Schwartz, NYT]
- Politics of intimidation: “jobs bill” advocates occupy office of Sen. Minority Leader McConnell (R-Ky.) [ABC News] Union protesters invade Sotheby’s during big auction [NYObserver] “Occupy Denver protesters try to storm conference of conservative bloggers” [Denver Post] “What’s the matter with Oakland?” [Megan McArdle] Post-’08 downturn, not wealth of the few, at root of economic woes [Steve Chapman] “Bohm-Bawerk forget to include [Ms. Katchpole] in his commentaries on sundry theories of interest.” [Tyler Cowen]
- New breakthroughs in abundant energy aren’t welcome to some [NYT “Room for Debate”] Is GOP wrong to make EPA an issue? [Michael Barone]
- After extracting $450,000 settlement, employee admits falsifying whistleblower evidence in oil filter antitrust case; class action suits continue [Bloomberg, Abby Schachter/NYPost via PoL]
- Least surprising Washington-DC-datelined story of year: “Medical malpractice reform efforts stalled” [Politico]
Archive for November, 2011
Busting Congress for insider trading
Thanks to the sensational revelations from Hoover’s Peter Schweizer on 60 Minutes and elsewhere, the public is now aware of the uncanny investment success that members of the U.S. Congress enjoy when they personally bet on the stocks of companies with business in the capital. But is it lawful for them to be trading on inside information? I take up that question in my new Cato at Liberty post. More: Bainbridge, Stoll, @AndrewBreitbart.
Judge declines to dismiss ADA suit over streaming Netflix
A Massachusetts federal judge has declined to throw out an ADA suit against Netflix demanding captioning of its streaming movie service, but “stayed the case pending rulemaking by the Federal Communications Commission.” [Qualters, NLJ] Relatedly, Arizona’s largest movie chain will install closed captioning and headset systems in all its outlets following an adverse ruling by the Ninth Circuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). [East Valley Tribune, earlier] Meanwhile, following an audit negotiated in a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice, “The city of Tucson may have to find an estimated $17 million to bring many of its facilities into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.” [Star]
Canada: police not responsible for barroom assault
A British Columbia court has ruled against a hockey player injured when another nightclub patron hit him in the head with a bar stool, ruling that the police were under no duty of care to identify the bar in question “as a nuisance to the public, a trap for the unwary, and to take pre-emptive steps to abate the danger it represented to potential patrons”. [Erik Magraken]
Constitutional law roundup
- High court tees up case on ObamaCare constitutionality, potentially one of the most significant in decades [Ilya Shapiro, Cato]
- “Andrew Sullivan Is Wrong About the Supreme Court and Guns” [Damon Root]
- Trade groups’ advocacy: judge quashes Tillery subpoena as chilling to free association [Madison County Record]
- Takings: “California’s Kafkaesque Rent Control Laws” [Richard Epstein] Things may be worse in China, though: “more than one attendee described Beijing as Kelo-on-steroids” [same]
- No, the federal government can’t find authority to overstep its otherwise delimited powers by entering into treaties calling for it to do so [Shapiro]
- Authors: U.S. Constitution is becoming less influential as model to foreign nations [Law/Versteeg via Zick, ConcurOp]
- Fight between strip-search lawyers leaves little to imagination [Kerr]
“Schumer’s layaway scam”
Charles Schumer, senior senator from New York, really does not seem to trust consumers to decide on their own arrangements, notes Steve Chapman.
P.S. Nor it seems is military spouse Holly Petraeus [Ira Stoll]
Speech criticizing lawsuit = “retaliation”
Brushing off First Amendment objections, a federal court has ruled that a union can be sued for “retaliation” after it defended itself in print against a lawsuit by two of its members. [Eugene Volokh]
November 14 roundup
- Seeking to address widespread pharmaceutical shortages, Obama executive order downplays government role in causing them [Fair Warning, WSJ editorial, earlier here, here, here, here, etc.]
- “The school has a strict no-hugging policy….” [WKMG Orlando]
- Retired Justice John Paul Stevens isn’t buying the “Thomas should recuse” meme [USA Today via Legal Ethics Forum]
- Not COPPA-cetic: among other unintended consequences, Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act has encouraged parents to help kids to falsify ages online [Danah Boyd via Jim Harper, Suderman, Reason, Stewart Baker, earlier]
- Lawmaking from the bench: Maryland high court strikes down law limiting landlords’ lead paint liability [Ronald Miller] “Maryland court sides with plaintiffs in slip-and-fall cases” [Emily Babay, Examiner]
- Trial lawyers help bail out Bexar County Democratic party [San Antonio Express-News]
- Supreme Court agrees to hear case arguing that aggressive enforcement of local housing code violates federal Fair Housing Act [Magner v. Gallagher, SCOTUSBlog, Illinois Municipal League, Daniel Fisher, Inverse Condemnation]
“Couple sues airline over cockroaches on plane”
Attorney Harry Marsh and his fiancée, Kaitlin Rush, are “suing AirTran Airways, claiming they saw cockroaches coming out of air vents and storage areas on a recent flight and that attendants ignored their concerns…. They’re suing for more than $100,000, plus the price of their tickets.” The airline denies some of the allegations in the suit and says it takes precautions against bugs. [Charlotte Observer]
Making Veteran’s Day friends
A staffer at Suffolk Law School in Boston solicited “much needed supplies to put in care packages to be sent to deployed troops” in Afghanistan, including a Suffolk student serving there. That didn’t sit well with Prof. Michael Avery, whose letter deploring the request, as well as the display of a large American flag at Suffolk, has been stirring discussion among Michael Graham listeners and Above the Law readers ever since.