May 29 roundup

by Walter Olson on May 29, 2012

  • Congress again debates bad idea of race-based government for native Hawaiians [Ramesh Ponnuru, Ilya Shapiro/Cato; earlier here, etc.]
  • “I could have been killed for blogging.” [Patterico, Scott Greenfield] Latest blogger “swatting” (bogus police call) hits RedState’s Erick Erickson [same] Incivility is a hazard for bloggers, but fear for families’ physical safety shouldn’t be [Jonathan Adler, Amy Alkon] Dear authorities in Montgomery County, Md. and elsewhere: you should know it’s not every day Radley Balko calls for tougher law enforcement. Earlier here and here.
  • More dying from guns than from car crashes? Eugene Volokh skewers some misleading arguments from the Detroit Free Press;
  • Mississippi: Judge dismisses Dickie Scruggs’s motion to vacate bribery conviction [AP; Tom Freeland and more]
  • Washington Times kindly cites coverage in this space on Maryland “structuring” prosecutions [editorial]. Maryland delayed foreclosures and is now paying the price in slower housing recovery [Hayley Peterson, Examiner]
  • Andrew Pincus defends arbitration and SCOTUS decision in Concepcion [NYTimes "DealBook"; NLJ] Effort in Florida to ease use of arbitration in med-mal disputes [Miami Herald]
  • Michigan Supreme Court judge Diane Hathaway, elected via 2008’s most unfair attack ad, is now in a spot of ethical bother [Ted Frank]

{ 2 trackbacks }

June 1 roundup - Overlawyered
06.01.12 at 12:30 am
Free speech roundup - Overlawyered
06.13.12 at 11:30 am

{ 1 comment }

1 Allan 05.29.12 at 11:08 am

Conception was a bad decision. I don’t so much mind the arbitration clause on a case-by-case basis. The problem is giving up class-action status. Assume a company like AT&T (very large company with millions of customers) assesses a bogus $2/month charge on its customers. This charge might result in millions for AT&T’s bottom line, and there is no effective way to get them to stop.

Either we need to allow for class actions or we need an effective government agency (an oxymoron?) to protect the consumer.

Comments on this entry are closed.