September 10 roundup

  • The beet grows on: some unintended consequences of mid-century sugar regulation [Chad Syverson via Bryan Caplan, EconLib]
  • Veteran Houston attorney charged with misdemeanor assault “for slapping a plaintiff’s attorney before a deposition.” [Angela Morris, Texas Lawyer, update]
  • I have a theory as to why Politico didn’t use a picture of Elena Kagan, Elizabeth Warren, Stephen Breyer, or Ruth Ginsburg speaking at Federalist Society events to illustrate Ted Olson’s piece comparing the Society’s activism heat index with that of the ABA;
  • Citing “misogynistic history,” state high court makes New Mexico first to abolish spousal testimonial privilege [ABA Journal, New Mexico v. Gutierrez]
  • Don’t go away angry, ex-sheriff Arpaio. Just go away [Jon Gabriel, Arizona Republic; our coverage over the years]
  • “Pro se allegation: After my friend got divorced, he refused to help set me up with his ex-wife. That’s intentional emotional abuse (also, he’s guilty of money laundering and tax evasion). Tenth Circuit: Yeah, we’re pretty sure the district court got this one right when it ruled against you.” [Institute for Justice “Short Circuit” on Anderson v. Pollard, 10th Circuit]


  • Judge Nakamura clearly has an agenda in the case where she seeks to abolish the spousal privilege exemption. Her other denials range from good (“ineffective counsel” is the claim of anyone ever convicted) to questionable. Certainly, holding that the testimony of ex-wives was not key in the conviction, means there’s no need to consider spousal privilege. Abolishing spousal privilege because trials are “justice-seeking” is way beyond the cherry-on-top definition.


  • I could go along with allowing voluntary testimony of spouses for serious crimes (as in this case). But it would be terrible to *compel* testimony of spouses– forcing them to choose between loyalty to the person they love, and the harsh sanctions for perjury or contempt of court.