Archive for June, 2012

Bloomberg’s soda Waterloo?

General derision continues from many quarters, if not all, for Mayor Bloomberg’s soda-snatch scheme. “Just don’t get caught with the weed AND a 24 ounce Coke” [NYT comment via John Elwood, Volokh] Baylen Linnekin finds it “just part of a typical news cycle in the Bloombergosphere” and points out that “The unsweetened juice of an apple — that symbol of New York City — contains at a minimum exactly the same number of grams of sugar per ounce (3.25 g) as Coca-Cola (3.25 g).” Ira Stoll suspects Bloomberg has surrounded himself overmuch with yes-men. More: George Will (“‘The essence of contemporary liberalism,’ ‘preposterous,’ ‘sinister'”)

Diversity hiring on law school faculties, cont’d

Point of Law has been continuing its discussion of racial preference and diversity hiring at law schools in the wake of the Elizabeth Warren brouhaha. I’ve now concluded my contribution with a second post (first one here). Excerpt from my new post:

…were competing approaches to diversity permitted, newcomers would be more likely to find an institution that suits their own desired experience: some would seek a pledge that advancement would be race- and sex-blind, others an assurance of encountering colleagues from backgrounds very different from their own.

Of course that’s not the world we live in. In our actual world, all law schools must conform to a prescribed format. Accreditation officials will haul up any institution that tries to be race-blind, and HLS will scramble to claim hiring credit for Prof. Warren’s vague family lore of Cherokee ancestry.

Should outsiders care? One reason to care might be if the prevalence of identity politics tends to reinforce the problem (assuming it is a problem) of ideological imbalance in the legal academy. In Schools for Misrule I conclude that it does, though only as one of many contributing factors….

Judge Easterbrook vs. the attitudinal model

At the Swarthmore commencement, Judge Frank Easterbrook explains why our Supreme Court would continue to generate many 5-4 cases even if all its members were appointed by a single President, and very many 9-0 cases even if its members were appointed by Presidents who were extremely different from each other politically. “In the United States, the Rule of Law really does differ from a Rule of Judges. Neutrality is a comfort to all who must stand before a court, and to all of us who favor equal justice under law.”

June 4 roundup

Ninth Circuit judge tees off on colleagues’ environmentalism

As green czars go, the powers of the Environmental Protection Agency and its administrator are at least circumscribed by law, the powers of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals much less so. When a majority of the circuit ruled the other day that California could not resume permitting suction panning of riverbeds for traces of gold, Judge Milan Smith Jr. along with three colleagues dissented with some asperity. “Here we go again,” he began, and went on to cite Gulliver bound by the Lilliputians. To quote the WSJ Law Blog:

No legislature or regulatory agency would enact sweeping rules that create such economic chaos, shutter entire industries, and cause thousands of people to lose their jobs. That is because the legislative and executive branches are directly accountable to the people through elections, and its members know they would be removed swiftly from office were they to enact such rules,” he wrote.

“Unfortunately,” he added, “I believe the record is clear that our court has strayed with lamentable frequency from its constitutionally limited role.”