February 27 roundup

  • In move to protect itself against patent trolls, Apple plans to close retail stores in the troll-favored Eastern District of Texas [Joe Rossignol, MacRumors; Sarah Perez, TechCrunch]
  • Don’t: “Civil Rights Lawyer Faked Cancer to Delay Cases, Illinois Bar Authorities Say” [Scott Flaherty, American Lawyer]
  • Don’t: “* lies about joint stipulation for extension * FABRICATES OPPOSITION BRIEF * constructs false chain of emails, forwards to partner. Dude, just doing the work would have been WAY less effort.” [Keith Lee thread on Twitter, with punch line being what the New York courts did by way of discipline; Jason Grant, New York Law Journal]
  • I’m quoted disagreeing (cordially) with Sen. Mike Lee on whether criticism of judicial nominees at hearings based on their religious views oversteps Constitution’s Religious Test Clause [Mark Tapscott, Epoch Times; my 2017 post at Secular Right]
  • Colorado may become 13th state to enact National Popular Vote interstate compact, an attempted workaround of the Electoral College. This critique of the idea is from 2008 [John Samples, Cato; Emily Tillett, CBS]
  • New York law imposes strict liability on simple possession of a gravity knife, leaves enforcement to official whim, and lacks a mens rea (guilty mind) requirement. The Constitution demands better [Ilya Shapiro on Cato Institute cert amicus brief in Copeland v. Vance, earlier and more on such laws]

One Comment

  • “National Popular Vote interstate compact, an attempted workaround of the Electoral College.”

    Among the other very good arguments agains this initiative, I think it conflicts with Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution. Or, if it does not conflict, I don’t understand why not.

    Also, I would expect most of the “smaller” states would oppose this initiative. For example, in the 2016 election, Clinton “won” the national popular vote including California, but “lost” excluding California – meaning that, under NPV, California would have elected Trump. Similarly, under NPV, the largest states would determine the outcome every year to the end of time. How does that represent the interests of the people in the smaller states? Is that really the way any except Democrat partisans want our system to work?

    On the other hand, “smaller” states voted to ratify the 17th Amendment. So go figure.

Join the Discussion

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.