- Cato Institute scholars liveblog reaction to State of the Union speech and GOP response, plus video on Facebook with Gene Healy and Julian Sanchez, more video;
- Private store owners get beaten up for lack of ADA ramps. On the other hand, when the federal government is building courthouses… [Sun-Sentinel; earlier here and here]
- “Securities suits filed in 2010 again a record” [Business Insurance]
- Do mass tort “claims facilities” enable participants to bypass the strictures of legal ethics? [Monroe Freedman, Legal Ethics Forum]
- Latest workplace-retaliation ruling once more undermines “pro-business Supreme Court” narrative [Bader, Examiner, more]
- Jacob Sullum reviews Daniel Okrent book on Prohibition [Reason]
- Another “lawyers excited about coming wave of bet-the-company climate change suits” article [AFP]
- Dickie Scruggs: “It was never about the money for me, this litigation” [four years ago on Overlawyered]
Filed under: alcohol, Cato Institute, climate change, disabled rights, ethics, global warming, securities litigation, Supreme Court
2 Comments
Re: ADA ramps
In all fairness, “accessible” and “secure” are concepts that don’t play well together.
The “Reason” review of “Last Call” fails to emphasize the extent to which the 18th Amendment was added to the Constitution was because it was supported not only by country preachers who hated “demon rum,” but by Progressives who wanted to improve the proletariat by removing the social evils rooted in easy access to alcohol, although it makes one mention of them. This was one of the things I found when I read the book that I found most revealing. Without Progressive support, the amendment never would have passed.