March 22 roundup

  • Gorsuch hearing “unlikely to change a single vote on anything” [Ilya Shapiro] “No, there is no way to force Supreme Court nominees to give revealing answers” [Orin Kerr] Members of Supreme Court bar are keen on the nominee [letter courtesy SCOTUSblog] And many law professors, even [letter via Will Baude]
  • “Nice Try! Judge Nixes Attempt To Turn $4 Million Worth Of Stickers Into $10 Million Bonus” [Daniel Fisher]
  • Problems here would seem to go beyond lack of court interpreter: “Interpreter no-show stalls Chigwedere witchcraft case” [The Herald, Zimbabwe]
  • “The Strange Case of Everet vs. Williams: When Two Highwaymen Took Each Other To Court” [Paul Anthony Jones, Mental Floss]
  • Important Phil Hamburger op-ed: Chevron entrenches a judicial bias in favor of state, Gorsuch is right to oppose it [New York Times]
  • It’s cute when legislators try to legalize dachshund racing [Lowering the Bar, Idaho, earlier]


  • interesting. The Times is now OK with the elimination of Chevron deference b/c the agencies are now under a Republican executive and the federal courts are filled with left-leaning Obama appointees. The Times is afraid of what Chevron deference might mean for the next 4 or 8 years.

    • Note that Philip Hamburger, who teaches law at NYU, contributed this one opinion piece to the New York Times op-ed page as an outsider. There is no reason to believe that the editors of the Times share his view of the Chevron doctrine or have some overarching strategic goal in running his piece.

      • So you’re claiming that the TIMES randomly chooses op-ed pieces to publish? I suppose the articles complaining about the current occupant of the White House are just a coincidence,


        • I am saying that the pieces a paper prints in its op-ed section do not necessarily reflect its own views, as is necessarily true in the many cases where a paper runs two pieces taking opposite positions.

          Until now, I did not realize that this proposition was even controversial.

          • I’m not saying it’s controversial, Walter, I’m saying that on occasion it’s bs. Can you point to the Times op/ed piece which supports the Chevron deference in timely opposition to this? Or if there was way back when Obama was in power and the good guys would be there forever, is the timing significant? Mr. Neal seems to believe so. I think his skepticism is as warranted towards the Times as mine is towards the government, no matter who gets elected.