Found this two years ago, near a college dining hall. from r/ScarySigns
Very comprehensive warning/disclaimer sign from the fascinating subreddit /r/ScarySigns, with the caption “Found this two years ago, near a college dining hall.”
June 6 roundup
- “Prosecutors say use of condoms manufactured outside state made sex crime a federal offense” [ABA Journal]
- Philadelphia family court judge, much criticized in course of appellate review, now subject of probe by state Judicial Conduct Board [Samantha Melamed, Philly.com]
- Check out illustration: would you be likely to confuse cartoon beaver with cartoon alligator? Texas jury in trademark dispute thinks you would [Lowering the Bar]
- Panels at Federalist Society’s annual Executive Branch Review Conference tackle disparate impact, litigation and regulatory reform, and civil service reform, including participants like Gail Heriot, Roger Clegg, Stuart Taylor, Jr, and Philip K. Howard;
- British restrictions on trial reporting wrongly infringe on liberty of press, but at core of Tommy Robinson affair is old-fashioned contempt of court [Daniel Hannan, Washington Examiner]
- Animal Legal Defense Fund argues animals should have standing to sue persons who abuse them, opening many new employment opportunities for lawyers at places like ALDF [KATU; related, recent Ninth Circuit monkey-selfie ruling]
Mark Pulliam on the origins of loser-pays
Banking and finance roundup
- Dodd-Frank “rollback” nips around the edges only [Victoria Guida and Zachary Warmbrodt, Politico, Diego Zuluaga, Cato] Study on law’s impact on small businesses and banks [Michael D. Bordo and John V. Duca, NBER via Tyler Cowen]
- “In Defense of Cash: Around the world, governments are trying to kill paper money. It’s a terrible idea.” [William J. Luther, Reason]
- U.S. Department of Labor: shareholder resolutions demanding environmental, social, or corporate governance changes can run counter to best interest of investors, and sponsors should not pretend otherwise in weighing fiduciary duty [Ike Brannon, Cato] “Corporate social responsibility” is not politically neutral [Stephen Bainbridge] More: Burchell Wilson, Economics 21;
- How to improve the CFPB, assuming that abolishing it isn’t on the agenda [Diego Zuluaga, The Hill]
- Lingering federal prohibitions doom state-legal cannabis to the plight of an unbanked industry [documentary screening and video of Cato panel with Matt Wood, Julie A. Hill, John Hudak, Jeffrey Miron, and George Selgin]
- “Mortgage Interest Deduction Reform Worked; Sky Isn’t Falling” [Vanessa Brown Calder, Cato]
Wedding cake cut five ways
I’ve got a piece up at the Weekly Standard on yesterday’s Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, on which a Supreme Court uniting 7-2 on result — but split five ways as to particulars — found the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to have operated unfairly, thus managing to dodge a substantive decision about the limits of forced expression. “Next time you run this process, skip the religious animus” is not the same as proclaiming a First Amendment right for the baker to turn down the wedding, though it may convey a significant message for the future in its own right.
More commentary: Ilya Shapiro (“the real action is foreshadowed by the concurring opinions”), Eugene Volokh (“will have little effect on other such same-sex wedding service provider cases, especially when government commissioners realize they shouldn’t say more about religion than is necessary”), John Corvino (opinion could put a brake on “rushing to dismiss our opponents as ‘despicable'”), David French (Kennedy’s emphasis on comparing the case with cake inquiries that offend other bakers bodes well for religious service providers), and Richard Epstein (“the worst kind of judicial minimalism”; what does the not-yet-legality of gay marriage at the time have to do with anything? and can Colorado reopen the case?), and earlier here. And you can listen to my guest appearance yesterday on the popular Clarence Mitchell IV (C4) show on Baltimore’s WBAL.
Constitutional law roundup
- “Allegation: Maplewood, Mo. officials trap low-income motorists in a repeated cycle of arrests and jailing over traffic violations by requiring them to pay fines and bonds irrespective of their ability to pay. A Fourteenth Amendment violation? The district court did not err, says the Eighth Circuit, in allowing the case to proceed.” [John Kenneth Ross, IJ “Short Circuit” on Webb v. City of Maplewood]
- “Does the Excessive Fines Clause Apply to the States? You’d think we’d know that by now — but the Supreme Court hasn’t spoken to this.” [Eugene Volokh]
- “SCOTUS Bingo: The Slaughterhouse Cases” [Sheldon Gilbert on Heritage “SCOTUS 101” podcast with Elizabeth Slattery and Tiffany Bates; Eighth Circuit occupational licensure case]
- Should committing a crime unrelated to guns or violence lead to lifetime forfeiture of gun rights? [Ilya Shapiro and Matt Larosiere on Cato amicus brief in Kanter v. Sessions, Seventh Circuit]
- “A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism,” Federalist Society podcast with Michael McConnell and Ilan Wurman discussing Wurman’s new book]
- A new and better Article V? [proposal for an “amendment amendment“]
“Can sex be mutually nonconsensual?”
“Male and female student have a drunken hookup. He wakes up, terrified she’s going to file a sexual misconduct complaint, so he goes to the Title IX office and beats her to the punch. She is found guilty and suspended.” [Caitlin Flanagan, The Atlantic quoting Robby Soave, Reason on University of Cincinnati case]
Chicago police want facial recognition drones
“We should consider how the technology is likely to be used, not how its proponents say it will.” [Matthew Feeney, Cato]
Chasing data portability on social media
Data portability mandates on tech companies like Facebook are sometimes conceived as a way to bring about more competitive market structures pleasing to antitrust enforcers by engineering a less “sticky” consumer experience. But is it really much of a solution to anything? [Alex Tabarrok citing Will Rinehart, American Action Forum; more, Tyler Cowen]
Top Scottish judge: rape victims “should not attend court”
Scotland’s most senior judge, Lord Carloway, “told the BBC his ‘ultimate objective’ was for alleged [rape] victims to be able to give filmed statements within 24 hours. The judge also said their cross-examination should take place well before the trial and away from court.” The idea would presumably be a non-starter in the United States owing to our constitution’s Confrontation Clause. [Lucy Adams, BBC]