Mostly Cato links:
- Today, Monday afternoon: Ilya Shapiro and John Paul Schnapper-Casteras preview Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission from different perspectives on eve of oral argument, Roger Pilon moderating [watch online, earlier] Why, on cakeshop case, “it won’t surprise me if the court comes up with something a little muddled and a little bit hard to read” [Chris Johnson, Washington Blade, quotes me] More: George Will (cakes are not expression; but while couple who sued cake-baker “might be feeling virtuous for having done so… siccing the government on him was nasty.”);
- “Christie v. NCAA: Anti-Commandeering or Bust” [Jonathan Wood and Shapiro, earlier here and here] “Supreme Court’s Sports Betting Case Could Redefine Relationship between Feds and States” [Shapiro]
- Federal courts were politicized before the Federalist Society came along, and promoting the cause of textualism helps de-politicize them [Roger Pilon]
- SCOTUS should use Janus v. AFSCME to recognize public employees’ First Amendment rights against forced union agency fees [Shapiro, Trevor Burrus, and Aaron Barnes] More: Shapiro and Frank Garrison, National Review; Cato Podcast with Jacob Huebert and Caleb Brown;
- Silvester v. Becerra: Ninth Circuit errs on individual gun rights, SCOTUS should correct [Shapiro and Matthew LaRosiere]
- Assuming patents = property, structure of Patent Trial and Appeal Board may flunk constitutionally required norms of judicial independence [Shapiro and Barnes on Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC; Federalist Society panel video with Gregory Dolin, John Duffy, Arti Ray, and Robert Greene Sterne; Jeffri Kaminski, WLF]
- Collins v. Virginia gives Court a chance to protect the integrity of the home against warrantless searches [Jay Schweikert] And mark Dec. 13 for the 2017 Cato Surveillance Conference;
- Extending Commerce Clause to prairie dogs gnaws at constitutional principle [Shapiro, Burrus, and Reilly Stephens on Cato amicus brief urging certiorari in PETPO v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service; Jacob Sullum]
4 Comments
Apparently George Will does not agree with the art community and their supporters – that art in its various expressed forms has no bounds.
a “boundless” art is hard to draw lines around, and this case is all about arbitrary line drawing. I suspect the court will rule in a fractured way, but ultimately conclude that baking a cake isn’t protected, nor is “generic” run of the mill decoration (pick from our catalog of options…), but that custom writing, decorations (the groom and groom or bride and bride silhouettes, etc) etc will be protected, much like with the screen printers. The court will no doubt assure us that they have pronounced a workable standard, and the lesser courts will no doubt each interpret that standard diffferently, while individual judges largely rule in accordance with their (dis)agreement as to the message conveyed.
But then, I may be a cynic.
“But then, I may be a cynic.”
Justifiably, in my opinion, in this case.
The headline for Silvester v. Becerra: “Ninth Circuit errs on individual gun rights, SCOTUS should correct” Heck, if you took that quote and removed ‘individual gun rights’, you’d be right on nearly every case the Ninth Circuit decides. Just save it as a fill-in-the-blank: “Ninth Circuit errors on _________________, SCOTUS should correct.”