|
You should be automatically redirected to the NEW Ex Parte. If not, please point your browser to http://exparte.powerblogs.com and visit us there. Ex Parte is a group weblog managed by the Harvard Federalist Society, a student organization of Harvard Law School, and written by its student members. To join Ex Parte, contact the Majordomo, Eric Soskin, at esoskin-at-law-dot-harvard-dot-edu.
Ex Parte Editorial Policy
***
Friday, January 21, 2005
Posted
9:33 AM
by Don't Be a Victim
Eminent Domain Conference @ Case-Western, 2/4/05
Recently got an email about this - more info at http://www.fed-soc.org/events/eminentdomain/promo.htm
There is evidently going to be a webcast for those who won't be able to make it their live. You should be able to find a link to the webcast at http://law.cwru.edu/centers/business_law/
closer to the conference.
Thursday, December 09, 2004
Posted
11:49 AM
by Jesse
If this prediction proves true, I'll be a happy man in 2008.
Monday, November 29, 2004
Posted
8:21 PM
by Don't Be a Victim
A more positive take on the Raich oral argument
A VERY thorough account of the oral argument can be found at Legal Theory blog. (Hat tip: Volokh Conspiracy)
Also, Jim Lindgren of the Volokh Conspiracy sees the oral argument as a coup for Raich.
Also, HLS Prof. Charles Fried was on NPR today (around the 4:00 mark of the audio) making a similar point to Randy Barnett's marriage/prostitution analogy about non-economic activity by saying that we should think of the cannabis as geraniums grown in a window flower box, and ask if Congress should be able to regulate that. (This NPR piece is annoying because, like much of the media coverage, it focuses on the legitimacy of the medical use of marijuana rather than the commerce clause issue central to the case.)
UPDATE: Timothy Lynch of the Cato Institue gives his impressions of the oral argument at the Ashcroft v. Raich blog. His take is a bit more pessimistic.
Posted
1:37 PM
by Don't Be a Victim
Ashcroft v. Raich oral argument update
The initial news is not very positive for Raich supporters:
Medical Marijuana Draws Skepticism at U.S. Top Court (Bloomberg.com)
[...]
There's no reason to believe ``everybody is going to get it from a friend or from plants in the back yard,'' Justice David H. Souter told the lawyer for the two women. ``They're going to get it in the street. Why isn't that the sensible assumption?''
[...]
Justice Antonin Scalia asked Barnett how his logic would apply to federal laws protecting endangered species. Those laws ban possession of ivory or eagle feathers without regard to whether a person obtained them through interstate commerce.
``Are those laws likewise unconstitutional?'' Scalia asked.
Wary Court Considers Medical Marijuana (ABCNew.com)
[...]
Justice Stephen Breyer said supporters of marijuana for the ill should take their fight to federal drug regulators before coming to the Supreme Court, and several justices repeatedly referred to America's drug addiction problems.
Posted
12:52 PM
by Don't Be a Victim
Ashcroft v. Raich oral arguments heard today.
Prof. Randy Barnett of BU law school made the oral argument for Raich, while Acting Solicitor General Paul D. Clement made the oral argument for the government. I will post more when I hear how the oral arguments went.
Further resources:
Randy blogs at the Volokh Conspiracy and there are a few posts there on the case. It may be a good source for links to reporting on how the oral argument went.
There is an Ashcroft v. Raich blog dedicated to this case.
There is a good, general summary of the case at Drug War Rant, though I think his 8-0 prediction is wildly optimistic.
SCOTUS blog has collected other recent media stories on the case.
The New York Times weighs in:
Although the California women should win, it is important that they win on narrow, fact-specific grounds. Advocates of states' rights have latched onto this case and are urging the court to use it to radically rewrite its commerce clause rulings, reviving ancient precedents that took a more limited view of Congressional power. This is where the greatest danger lies in this case. If this sharply restricted view prevails, it could substantially diminish the federal government's ability to protect Americans from unsafe work conditions, pollution, discrimination and other harms.
(hat tip: Volokh Conspiracy)
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Posted
9:06 PM
by Don't Be a Victim
Victory for Free Speech and E-commerce!
Good news from California...
From IJ's email press release:
Federal Court Declares California's Online Real Estate Licensing Law Unconstitutional
Licensing Internet Publishers Violates First Amendment Rights
Washington, D.C.-In a ruling that will unshackle Internet publishers and save consumers millions of dollars, a federal judge in Sacramento struck down California's demand that websites obtain a real estate broker's license to publish real estate advertising and information. The court concluded that the law, which requires websites to obtain a license but specificallyexempts newspapers that publish the same information, was "wholly arbitrary"and violated the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and freedom ofthe press.
For the full press release (a somewhat different version than above) see:
http://www.ij.org/media/first_amendment/real_estate/index.html
Posted
4:59 PM
by Don't Be a Victim
Moot Court Account
You can read a blow-by-blow account of the Ashcroft v. Raich moot court hosted at HLS today (by HLS Federalist Society and HLS Forum) at Amber Taylor's blog - Part 1 and Part 2.
Prof. Randy Barnett argues the case for real next Monday.
Monday, November 22, 2004
Posted
7:53 PM
by Don't Be a Victim
Ashcroft v. Raich Supreme Court Moot - On campus tomorrow afternoon
Anyone interested in hearing a trial run of a Supreme Court oral argument should come to Ames Courtroom in Austin Hall at 2:30 pm on Tuesday, Nov. 23 to hear Prof. Randy Barnett make oral arguments in Ashcroft v. Raich. Hearing the oral argument as Justices will be Professors Fried, Young, Parker, Calabresi, Shapiro, and Meltzer. Barnett will be making the actual Supreme Court oral argument next Monday, Nov. 29.
The case is an important one for Federalists, as the court considers whether Federal drug regulations prohibiting the use of medical cannabis (permitted in California) are valid under the Commerce Clause, or if noncommercial cultivation of medical cannabis for private use is not an activity that substantially affects interstate commerce.
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Posted
11:18 PM
by Jesse
The NBA's reaction to this debacle is simply infuriating. In reaction David Stern said this:
"We have to make the point that there are boundaries in our games," he said. "And that one of those boundaries, which has always been immutable, is the boundary that separates the fans from the court. And players cannot lose control and go into the stands. As a corollary, we have to hold fans responsible for their antisocial behavior as well." Stern said that fans who did not conduct themselves properly would be barred permanently.
As for the players--the professionals who make millions to stay on one side of that line and who violently crossed this "immutable boundary"--they only have to sit out for anywhere between 6 to 72 games. Next year, they get to come back and make millions and do it again next year. Absolutely outrageous.
Stern also said this of Artest: "I did not strike from my mind the fact that Ron Artest has been suspended on previous occasions for a loss of self-control." Indeed, according to NYT:
Artest...has had a history of misbehavior. Before Friday night, he was suspended for a total of 15 games by the league and by his teams. In January 2003, he destroyed a Madison Square Garden camera and slammed a monitor to the ground. He amassed nine flagrant foul points during that season.
A fan is likely to get suspended for life from NBA games for crossing the line once, but a player can do it again and again and again. Truly, the NBA, as a league and as an institution is in a shambles. It's a disgrace, and the saddest part is that dozens of kids will wear Artest jerseys to school this week...
Posted
6:07 PM
by Jesse
I think you've got the better of this one. For the present, I concede the particular point and agree on the larger point (but would contest one small point--I doubt Lott was forced out on principle, but rather on political untenability). And hey, looks like we're blogging again.
No thoughts on the NBA situation? A less political discussion to be sure, but equally interesting I think. I had a great discussion with somebody yesterday who felt the fans "got what they had coming to them." I still think these players should be banned.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Posted
11:44 PM
by Jesse
Fair enough. And you may be right about this particular incident, this particular prosecution, and this particular rule change. Even so, this is a critical time for a party with great power, promise, and wide-ranging support. I quote Brooks:
[M]any House Republicans know that DeLay has been playing close to the ethical edge for years. They've noticed the number of scandals - the latest involving lobbying fees for some Indian casinos - that trace back to DeLay cronies. They still remember that delicious feeling of possibility when they arrived in Washington and vowed they would not turn into the corrupt old majority they had come to replace. They know Delay symbolizes their descent from that reformist ideal.
My cocern is that so much promise not be washed away by politics as usual. Indeed, the Republicans of 1994 came in with a mission and a set of ideals; after 10 years in power, I hope those ideals do not give way to "career" interests and inside baseball.
Posted
4:06 PM
by Jesse
Ex Parte…where have you gone. A noticeable dearth of postings these last few weeks…
In the news headlines today are two things that I’d be curious to hear other people’s thoughts on:
First, the NBA brawl in Detroit. The NBA has announced that the players who threw punches at fans--Ron Artest, Jermaine O'Neal and Stephen Jackson—are, as of now, suspended “indefinetly.” This brawl, and truly it was a brawl, is Exhibit A as to why I rarely, if ever watch professional sports, and why I never watch the NBA. In any other profession, save sports, employee conduct of this nature toward a customer (even a rude, boorish, and provocative customer) would result in immediate termination—and, likely, criminal prosecution. No less should be the outcome here. These men, to whom the League pays millions and whose names adorn the jerseys children wear to school, fancy themselves “professional” athletes. There is nothing professional about what occurred the other night—as, so often, there is nothing professional about NBA players’ conduct, on or off the court. Ron Artest and his cronies acted like animals—like animals in a cage fight—and their actions were, simply, sickening. They do not deserve continued employment in the NBA, do not deserve their salaries, and indeed, in my opinion, should be banned from the NBA for life—and criminally prosecuted.
Second, Tom Delay and the House Republicans’ capitulation. David Brooks of NYT, suggests that one reason, of course, that House Republicans went along with the rule change was self-interest: it would be bad for their careers to challenge the majority leader, even if he is in a bit of hot water. A fine and obvious explanation. The problem for me is that any member of Congress should view his service as a career. While I’m not sure I favor mandated term limits, it seems to me, that if we had more public-spirited men and women who viewed their service as temporary—and as service—breakdowns such as these would not occur. When you are not looking at your likely chairmanship (or reelection) fifteen years down the line, you can vote your conscience and your principles more often. Indeed, after the astounding election results earlier this month, this is decidedly a step in the WRONG direction for the Republican Party.
|
