April 2 roundup

by Walter Olson on April 2, 2011

  • Schumer: ban gun ownership by persons arrested but not convicted of drug offenses [Jeff Winkler, Daily Caller]
  • Urban-farming pioneer in Oakland may come a cropper for selling produce without license [SFGate via Perry]
  • Harvard-trained Obamanauts’ revenge? Feds investigate Yale for alleged sexually harassive environment [Zincavage] Related: strings attached to federal money for university “sexual assault prevention” include mandatory student sensitivity-training attendance [TBD, more]
  • Trade dumping law as competitive shakedown mechanism [Tabarrok]
  • “Forwarding a Sentence-Long Message from a Listserv = Copyright Infringement?” [Volokh]
  • “Product Defect Case Over Ear Candle Cleared for Trial” [OnPoint News, McConnell/D&D, Abnormal Use]
  • Oh, Title IX, couldn’t you at least leave our booster club alone? [Saving Sports] Wrestling team axe is just the start for men’s sports cuts at Liberty U. [same]
  • “Wal-Mart v. Dukes [Lawyers] Ask Courts To Fix The World” [Dan Fisher, Forbes] Liptak/NYT on use of “social framework” evidence in case [Mass Tort Prof] Rhetoric about “day in court” tends to obscure actual stakes [Daniel Schwartz] More: Hans Bader, and Jon Hyman with many links.

{ 2 trackbacks }

April 10 roundup
04.10.11 at 7:18 am
Yale adopts submissive posture in Title-IX-vs.-speech case
04.16.11 at 7:04 am

{ 6 comments }

1 Beldar 04.03.11 at 1:20 am

Walter, you may recall from the Prop 12 tort reform debate in Texas in 2003 that an amendment to the Texas state constitution was needed, rather than just a new law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. That was because in Lucas v. United States, 757 S.W.2d 687 (Tex. 1988), the Texas Supreme Court — the infamous “Sixty Minutes” court, before the GOP started winning state-wide judicial elections — had interpreted the “open courts” provision of the Texas constitution to displace the legislature’s power to enact damages caps. Basically Lucas had interpreted “everyone gets a day in court” — an innocuous proposition with which no one disagrees, so it had never before been litigated — to mean “everyone has to have a chance at a bonanza!”

2 Beldar 04.03.11 at 1:29 am

(I should have said “consistently winning.” By 1988, my friend and one-time colleague Tom Phillips had been elected Chief Justice, and he dissented in Lucas.)

3 John Fembup 04.03.11 at 7:25 am

The ear-candle magistrate is named Waxse?

Sure and it’s the eponomy !

4 wfjag 04.04.11 at 8:06 am

RE: Schumer: ban gun ownership by persons arrested but not convicted of drug offenses .

Finally, something I can agree with Chucky about. But, why stop there? Anyone arrested, but not convicted, of drug offenses should also be banned from voting. As long as we’re stripping Constitutional rights based on only an arrest, why stop at the 2d Amendment. Might as well strip 14th Amendment, and 1st Amendment, and, . . .

5 GregS 04.04.11 at 10:53 am

RE: Schumer: ban gun ownership by persons arrested but not convicted of drug offenses .

I seem to remember that there used to be a clause in the U.S. constitution that said something to the effect that no one could be deprived of their constitutional rights without the due process of law – that is, they had to be convicted of a crime before their rights could be taken away. Does anyone know when this clause was repealed? Because it must have been if a U.S. Senator thinks a proposal like this one is constitutional.

6 robert 04.04.11 at 3:56 pm

Re: the gun ownership proposal.

There were similar laws enacted that mandated “AIDS Tests” (i.e., HIV Antibody tests) on people charged with–but not convicted of–sex crimes. Some of these laws still stand. There’s no justification, medical or legal, that I can think of for doing this.

It used to be that the only ones who could get away with guilty-until-proven-innocent was the IRS. That seems to be expanding….

Comments on this entry are closed.