That’s the headline on a recent Financial Times piece (sorry, the FT has a paywall) by Martin Wolf. It’s a silly headline, for a silly article.
How should we assess the economic success or failure of Barack Obama’s presidency?
This is a difficult question to answer.
The failure stems from an inability to define hate, but mostly it fails from the irrelevance of hate as anything other than a motivator for committing a crime. Motive, though, belongs solely in the jury box during the punishment phase given a conviction of a crime; it should not be foreordained by a Government’s attempt to define the hate or by Government’s more evident attempts to discriminate among groups of Americans and single some out for favorable treatment at the expense of other groups of Americans.
Dylann Roof has been convicted of the murders of nine good men and women, people he butchered in his rampage through a Baptist church.
Now he’s crying over the…unfairness…of the penalty phase of his trial. At the risk of repeating things known to those of you following along at home, Roof is defending himself during this phase, and he’s chosen to offer neither witnesses nor mitigating evidence during this phase.
Congressman Steve King (R, IA) is has introduced a bill in the House that would
bar the Supreme Court from citing Obamacare in forthcoming decisions as binding precedent.
By prohibiting the Supreme Court from citing ObamaCare cases, we will be truly eradicating this unconstitutional policy from all three branches of government so that the repeal will be complete. Furthermore, we must work to restore Article I authority and the Rule of Law by ensuring Congress is the only entity of our government making or changing laws.
This is a preview of
The Supremes and Congressionally Mandated Precedents
. Read the full post (279 words, estimated 1:07 mins reading time)
In a case involving Federal government payments to Obamacare insurers to “reimburse” them for health coverage plan discounts the government requires those insurers to provide low-income plan buyers, a Federal district court judge in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (which gives the judge’s ruling nationwide jurisdiction) ruled those payments to be unconstitutional—the payments had been being made even though no funds had been appropriated for the purpose by Congress.
In a more extensive piece about the vacancies into which President-Elect Donald Trump can nominate Federal judges, The Washington Post emphasized the nature of President Barack Obama’s (D) appointments—and by extension, the differences in judicial qualification philosophy between the two Presidents, although that wasn’t necessarily intentional.
Trump is likely to appoint judges with a view toward
[s]tate gun control laws, abortion restrictions, voter laws, anti-discrimination measures, and immigrant issues are all matters that are increasingly heard by federal judges and will be influenced by the new composition of the courts. Trump has vowed to choose ideologues in the mold of the late Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative icon….
In last month’s elections, one of the ballot items was a South Dakota measure (apologies: the Argus Leader has a really intrusive set of popup ads) to limit
how much PACs, political parties, and individuals can give to candidates.
The measure passed by a slim 51%-49% margin, but nevertheless, the passage is by the voice of the citizens of that State. The article at the link gives a summary of those limits.
Now a South Dakota judge has issued an injunction against implementing or enforcing that law. Circuit Judge Mark Barnett, in issuing the injunction, acknowledged that the matter likely will end up before the South Dakota Supreme Court, and he said
This is a preview of
A State Court and the Citizens of the State
. Read the full post (346 words, estimated 1:23 mins reading time)
The singer Kesha, in a Manhattan court, is suing Sony and ex-producer “Dr Luke” over allegations of having been drugged and raped. There are (unsubstantiated) reports that the presiding judge, Shirley Kornreich, should be removed from the case because she’s married to Proskauer Rose law firm partner Edward Kornreich, and Proskauer Rose represents Sony.
Kornreich says the move is sexist.
If it’s an issue at all, it’s an issue because women are now part of the professional work force[.]
The (eight Justice) Supreme Court is going to take up the question of gerrymandering and Congressional districts in Virginia and North Carolina. In fact, the case the Court is hearing is narrower than that:
drawing legislative districts based on race.
Never mind that the Democrats’ Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandates race-based districting: the VRA
generally prohibits reducing minority-voting power through redistricting
which, of course, explicitly requires race-based districting in order to “protect” that “power.”
Jacob Gershman has a piece in The Wall Street Journal‘s Law Blog about the increasing use of software algorithms to assess newsworthiness and the implications of that increasing use on legal assessments of the tradeoffs between individual privacy and what’s fit to print. In it, Gershman quotes Georgetown University Associate Professor of Legal Research and Writing Erin Carroll.
Given the dominance of platforms like Facebook, the related influence of algorithms on how news is made, and specifically how algorithms are beginning to supplant editorial discretion and the editorial process, courts need to rethink their rationales for deference to the press. In the realm of privacy law, courts have long trusted the Fourth Estate to vet the newsworthiness of a subject before publishing, so that the courts themselves did not have to. Today, that trust is becoming misplaced.