Stephen Richer has some thoughts about why it was so easy for many law professors to miss the mood of the Supreme Court and of the country. Also some very kind words on Schools for Misrule [Forbes] And: don’t miss Jonathan Adler’s take.
Archive for March, 2012
Shortages of vital drugs hit Canada
And, surprisingly or not, there’s a U.S. Food and Drug Administration angle. [Marni Soupcoff, National Post/FP] Earlier here, here, etc.
“It’s just bad public policy to allow unfettered access to all kinds of food.”
Meet the meddlers: officials from California to Gotham to London who believe that so long as we remain free to smoke, drink and consume potato chips in the privacy of our home, “government isn’t doing its job.” [Gene Healy, Examiner]
P.S. As readers rightly point out, the post should have noted that the speaker quoted in the headline was referring to the subsidized food stamp program, not the same thing as restricting consumer access to foods generally (though some “food policy” buffs certainly do favor the latter.)
U.K. man jailed over racially offensive tweeting
Life without a First Amendment: a student in Swansea, Wales, is jailed for posting racially offensive comments on Twitter while drunk [Nick Cohen, Spectator]
NYT profiles Randy Barnett
The Times devotes a front page profile to the Georgetown law professor (and Cato colleague),who is more closely identified than any other thinker with the legal case against ObamaCare’s individual mandate. (More: ABA Journal, Bernstein/Volokh, Chicago Reader.) I’ve known Prof. Barnett and admired his work for longer than I can remember and this gives me the chance to point out self-servingly that he also wrote one of the very nicest blurbs for my book Schools for Misrule:
“While the public loves to bash lawyers, judges, and politicians, law professors have escaped all blame. Olson provides the inside story of how progressive political ideology became the reigning orthodoxy of elite legal education, providing the legal theories responsible for an overweening government committed to mandating, prohibiting, or regulating every aspect of American life in the ‘public interest.’ I wish I could say he exaggerates but, sadly, the legal foundation of the road to serfdom was devised by law professors.”
— RANDY E. BARNETT, Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory, Georgetown Law Center; author of Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty
“JFK Airport a Foul Nest of Luggage Thieves, Claims Random Dude”
Choire Sicha at The Awl reports on the latest doings of New York attorney and emerging Overlawyered favorite Kenneth Mollins, seen earlier here and here.
Will Stand Your Ground change the outcome of the Martin/Zimmerman case?
The Orlando Sentinel asked me to analyze how Florida’s Stand Your Ground law affects the Trayvon Martin shooting case. I conclude that in most likely scenarios, the law will make no difference one way or the other on George Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence, though it does help him on some points of procedure. Jacob Sullum has related thoughts at Reason (more at Cato).
The other piece in the point-counterpoint is from Florida prosecutor Buddy Rogers who emphasizes that claims of justifiable homicide have risen sharply (from 12 to 33 a year), even if homicides per capita themselves have not. I took a look at the crime numbers in this Cato post.
To answer a question, it was the Sentinel editors who elected to describe the antagonists in the Sanford confrontation by way of a given name for one (“Trayvon”) but a surname for the other (“Zimmerman”). My own inclination is to use a surname for both.
Michael Mannheimer has an important post on the role of “provocation” in the Martin/Zimmerman case at PrawfsBlawg. Earlier here, here, and here.
P.S. David Kopel similarly argues that Zimmerman’s guilt or innocence (depending on which version of events is accepted) is no different in Florida from what it would be under the law of New York or any other state; he also defends the rationale for Florida’s use of an immunity, which he argues “does not change the law, but… apparently is effective at reminding law enforcement officers of the standard they are required to obey” under court precedents forbidding arrest without probable cause.
March 27 roundup
- NYC: “Lawsuit Blames Apple’s Glass Doors for Plaintiff’s Broken Nose” [Lowering the Bar, CBS New York]
- Some who pushed enhanced punishment for Dharun Ravi may now be doubting they really want it [Scott Greenfield, earlier here, etc.]
- NYT editorial on FMLA state immunity is as bad as anyone had a right to expect [Whelan]
- “Pleading, Discovery, and the Federal Rules: Exploring the Foundations of Modern Procedure” [Martin Redish, FedSoc “Engage”] Summary of important ’09 Redish book Wholesale Justice calling into question constitutionality of class actions [Trask]
- Would trial-by-DVD be so very wrong? [James Grimmelmann, Prawfs]
- Contested memorabilia: lawsuits filed over estate of gay rights pioneer Franklin Kameny [MetroWeekly]
- Feds’ “distracted driving” guidance could impair usefulness of car navigation systems [Cunningham/CNet, earlier]
Krugman, Brady, and Stand Your Ground laws
I mostly ignore the frothings of Paul Krugman in the New York Times, but his column today pursues a logic that’s insane even for him: in an attack on the right-of-center American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), he proposes that Stand Your Ground (SYG) laws tie into a trend of “growing incarceration” intended to line the coffers of private prison contractors. Earth to Krugman: SYG laws bolster criminal defendants’ rights, and your colleagues at the Times have been complaining that as a result it’s too hard for prosecutors to send people to prison for long terms. Next time, could you stop and think before hitting the send button?
In the opinion piece I’m finishing up, I expect to argue that as more facts emerge about the Feb. 26 Martin/Zimmerman confrontation, the 2005 changes to Florida self-defense law known as Stand Your Ground are looking less and less likely to control the legal outcome of the case. Along those lines, I notice in Friday’s Washington Post what I read as a straw in the wind:
“We’ve never thought by itself that the law is the main issue,” said Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. “What we think is the main issue is the mentality that that law provides.”
Hmm. So despite hundreds of press assertions to the contrary in the past week, the actual content of the Florida law (as opposed to its supposed furtherance of a vague “mentality”) doesn’t turn out to be the main issue after all. Earlier here and here (& Reason).
Don’t miss related analysis from Eugene Volokh on the scope of the self-defense justification in American criminal law and the standards for probable cause in arresting someone who claims that justification. And Jennifer Rubin weighs in at Washington Post “Right Turn” (quoting me). More: Scott Greenfield, Steve Chapman.
“Overcriminalization, Circa 1903”
“How many times a day do you break the law?” That could be the title of a new Harvey Silverglate book, but it’s a concern that was already vexing Americans more than a century ago. [Kyle Graham]