- Celebrity political defamation suits I: Stormy Daniels sues President Trump [Ken White and Marc Randazza at Popehat, strong language x2]
- Celebrity political defamation suits II: Roy Moore sues accusers [Paul Gattis/Al.com, Gabriel Malor on Twitter]
- Our knowledgeable readers have been having a discussion in comments about Wisconsin’s butter-grading rules and whether they have a rational basis, and Joshua Thompson of Pacific Legal Foundation, which represents Minerva Dairy, has written a post to explain more, which also has kind words we appreciate (“does a magnificent job pointing out and explaining the seen and unseen costs of our legal system”);
- USC lawprof Simkovic’s screed on campus-speech controversies ascribes sinister motives to Eugene Volokh and Prof. Josh Blackman, not to mention my own book Schools for Misrule [David Bernstein and more, Paul Horwitz, Popehat on Twitter, Rick Hills, William Jacobson/Legal Insurrection, Scott Greenfield]
- “Gabriel Over the White House,” Hollywood’s jarringly weird 1933 paean to one-man rule, aired on TCM April 27 [Jeff Greenfield, David Boaz, Gene Healy and Caleb Brown video]
- “Keep Facial Recognition Away From Body Cameras” [Matthew Feeney, Cato]
Filed under: accolades, law schools, libel slander and defamation, movies film and videos
5 Comments
If you know much about First Amendment law, you know a bit about Marc Randazza. …and if you know a bit about Marc Randazza’s writings, the “strong language x2” notice is completely unnecessary. At times, I’m not certain it helps him make his point, but he does seem to take a certain delight in cavorting with strong language in all his writings, not just his blog posts, whether at Popehat or on his own page. His briefs, of course, are “somewhat” cleaner.
Anyone with the modicum of intelligence necessary to become a judge should surely be able to come up with a rational basis for any action any legislature takes on any topic. I.e, the “rational basis” test is no test at all. In practice it means “if I agree with the law I will discern the rational basis; if I disagree with the law I’ll probably leave it alone but if I REALLY REALLY disagree with the law I will try to foreclose all rational bases arguments.”
Ok, so what is the alternative standard you suggest? If you have a harder to satisfy test, you’re making it easier for unelected judges to overturn laws passed by the people’s elected representatives. If you have a weaker test, you’re saying that judges shouldn’t be able to strike down irrational laws.
With regard to butter grading, if there were a good reason to require all butter to be graded, the burden on artisanal producers might be greatly eased by having the producers grade the butter themselves. That is how Vermont maple syrup is graded. Standards are kept up through a combination of education and checks. A state agricultural inspector may come round and check out your maple syrup, or a consumer may complain. If investigation reveals that maple syrup has been improperly labelled, you can be penalized.
If there were a good reason to have [x] graded, then having the producers grade it would be reasonable… Make the punishment for misgrading high enough and you probably get better inspections than any performed by any third party. So, reform grading law for all [x]! đŸ˜€