From the monthly archives:

September 2010

A West Yorkshire man who gardens in the nude says the building of houses nearby would violate his human rights. [BBC]

{ 5 comments }

State attorney general races are often lacking in suspense — if only because incumbents seldom lose — but this year there are more genuine races [Joseph Kastner, Ballotpedia via Jack Harper, NRO]

{ 1 comment }

And the resulting lawsuit by the bomb victim names as defendants the parking garage as well as the family member. A panel of the D.C. Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of the garage owners, however, ruling that a car bombing was not reasonably foreseeable at their location on Wisconsin Ave. in the District of Columbia. [Sigmund v. Starwood, Findlaw, via The Briefcase]

{ 6 comments }

We’re honored to be included in Prof. Bainbridge’s list.

Who could resist a headline like that? And the case is worth knowing about, filed by a hospital employee who seems to have jumped to the conclusion that “because her boss was a Southern Baptist and a ‘good ole boy,’ … he therefore had ‘inherent sexist attitudes.’” [Jay Lechner, Greenberg Traurig Labor and Employment Blog via Ohio Employer's]

{ 1 comment }

Prepare to meet the EEOC’s wrath [AP/Law.com]. The topic is not new; I wrote about it for Reason quite a while back. More: Julie DelCour, Tulsa World.

{ 11 comments }

September 9 roundup

by Walter Olson on September 9, 2010

  • “Bullying Busybody for Senate: How Connecticut’s attorney general beat Craigslist into submission” [Sullum, Harper] Blumenthal’s Senate campaign sputtering despite huge advantages [Jack Fowler, NRO] Lloyd Grove interview with challenger Linda McMahon [Daily Beast]
  • “How Much Does Defensive Medicine Cost? One Study Says $46 Billion” [WSJ Health Blog, NY Times] Plus: a cardiologist’s comment;
  • “Man sues over parking ticket, says it disclosed too much info” [Obscure Store, suburban Chicago Daily Herald]
  • New allegations emerge in much-discussed “rape by deception” case in Israel [FrumForum, earlier, an academic comments]
  • A Connecticut village turns down money from Hartford and tackles a historic preservation project on its own [me at Cato]
  • NY Governor signs bill giving housekeepers, nannies new powers to sue employers for overtime, vacations [Workplace Prof] Plus: Hans in comments wonders whether the duty to avoid “hostile environment” harassment will collide with the right of free speech on sexual matters taken for granted (heretofore, at least) in a home environment.
  • “Lawyers sue Facebook for letting kids like advertisements” [Gryphon, PoL]
  • Per his foes, Gilded Age NYC trial lawyer William Howe used onion-scented handkerchief to summon tears at command [five years ago at Overlawyered]

{ 6 comments }

Jim Hood’s expert loyalty

by Walter Olson on September 9, 2010

The Mississippi Attorney General keeps defending a capital conviction based on dubious bite-mark testimony [Radley Balko, Reason]

A Florida complainant might wind up digging himself a deeper hole, reputation-wise. [Above the Law]

Patrick at Popehat comes up with a generic post that can be re-used every few months (or days, or hours) as similar future controversies thrust themselves into public awareness.

…goes down in flames [Atlantic Wire] We’ve met the litigant before, and it is worth noting that statute-based challenges to Ladies’ Night discounts remain (unfortunately) alive and well in at least some states.

{ 8 comments }

“There’s no doubt delivering food is a risky job — it routinely ranks on the U.S. Bureau of Labor’s most-dangerous jobs list — and after last week’s much-publicized robbery of a Chinese food deliveryman, some restaurants might be inclined to avoid delivery to high-crime areas. But in doing so, restaurants might open themselves up to civil litigation regulating anti-discrimination practices, essentially creating a catch-22 for the businesses, legal experts said.” [Harrisburg Patriot-News]

{ 10 comments }

CPSIA for soap?

by Walter Olson on September 8, 2010

PeacockBeautyPoster“The Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 (SCA 2010), now before the House of Representatives, is an inappropriate and seriously flawed attempt to make cosmetics safer.” Disregarding considerations of dose and concentration, the bill would require label disclosure of every substance present in an ingredient “at levels above technically feasible detection limits.” Essential oils and herb extracts typically contain 100 or more such substances, some of which, in isolation and at much larger concentrations, would qualify as toxic. And there’s a CPSIA-like requirement that manufacturers test all ingredients before sale. “Most small personal care product businesses will not survive if SCA 2010 passes.” [fragrance specialist Robert Tisserand] The lead sponsors of the proposed Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 (H.R. 5786) are Reps. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill. of CPSIA fame, Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Tammy Baldwin, D-Wisc. [Drug Store News] More: Lela Barker, Cosmetics Design.

{ 3 comments }

“Any errors are the fault of no-one in particular; rather, society itself is to blame.” And: “All errors are the authors’ sole responsibility, but persons aggrieved by any such errors are encouraged to sue the companies which manufactured our computers.” [Kopel/Volokh]

{ 2 comments }

Bruce Nye (Cal Biz Lit) and Michael Pappas (at Law.com Corporate Counsel) count the ways: “Why do I have to tell everyone that my grilled chicken, which is made the same way as my grandmother used to make it, may cause cancer?” (The answer being California-specific Proposition 65.)

{ 6 comments }

The Washington Post — unlike some other newspapers we might think of — doesn’t mind letting its editorial stance catch up with the facts on the ground as they appear to NHTSA staff. We’ve been on the story for quite a while.

{ 2 comments }

The other day the Obama administration came out with the first official U.S. response to the United Nations’ “periodic review” critique of human rights practices within the United States. To the surprise of many — though not of those who’ve been following this area carefully — it presented as human rights imperatives worthy of international attention a wide range of initiatives that would earlier have been seen as domestic policy matters, from ObamaCare (whose passage — including a penalty on individuals for failing to buy health insurance — it depicted as a human rights advance) to labor law (where it suggested that Congress might be putting the U.S. human rights record at risk if it declines to expand the organizing rights of labor unions).

One of the major themes of my forthcoming book Schools for Misrule is the role of thinkers in the law schools in preparing the way for new and transformed (and gravely mistaken) conceptions of international human rights. Today on the Cato Institute’s daily podcast series, Caleb Brown interviews me about the ongoing redefinition of international human rights and how we got to this point. The interview audio is available here.

My Cato Institute colleague Roger Pilon, who directs the Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies and served under Reagan as policy director for the State Department’s office on human rights, has been active in recent days in advancing a critique of the Obama administration’s approach in a Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed as well as at Cato at Liberty.

And coincidentally: today’s NYT reports that George Soros is giving $100 million to Human Rights Watch, a group in the forefront of advancing novel human rights claims.

{ 1 comment }

September 7 roundup

by Walter Olson on September 7, 2010

{ 8 comments }