- Not a parody: economics professor sets off debate on “ugly rights” with suggestion of making unattractiveness of appearance a protected discrimination-law category [Daniel Hamermesh/NYT, PoL, Eric Crampton, Jon Hyman] Apparently Niall Ferguson needn’t worry [Telegraph]
- Feds sue banks and more than 130 executives, demanding billions over their role in the mortgage crisis; new “tobacco/asbestos” predicted [Biz Insider, more, yet more] Takes some cheek to cast Fannie and Freddie as victims [John Berlau, CEI]
- Also on mortgages: Rahm Emanuel’s unsound new “lender must cut the grass” ordinance [Funnell] California AG sues lawyers, telemarketers over class action loan modification scheme; lawyer fires back with civil rights suit [AP, ABA Journal] New York chief judge wants state to fund more lawyers to resist enforcement of mortgages [PoL]
- Related to last, on Civil Gideon’s “‘impossible dream’ of giving every civil litigant a lawyer” [Benjamin Barton & Stephanos Bibos, SSRN via Instapundit]
- Fallen tree damage from all these storms? Think twice before taking your neighbor to court [Ilya Somin]
- Stories you read here first: wider coverage for EEOC suit against trucking company for not letting alcoholic drive [Fox, earlier]
- Illinois advocates plan push for punitive civil suits against johns, strip club owners, sex-ad websites [NYT]
Filed under: banks, civil gideon, discrimination law, mortgages, strippers and exotic dancers, trees
3 Comments
The ugly rights econ prof? Check out the article in the National Law Journal suggesting that to be an elite law school, you have to have professors who have PHDs in econ! Even if they don’t have J.D.s!! This is kind of consistent with your book, isn’t it?
“Government Sues Trucking Company for Taking Keys Away From Alcoholic Driver”
This is interesting. I wonder what the EEOC say about the FAA revoking the licenses of Airline Transport Pilots for incurring DUIs? Would they think that being in a treatment program is sufficient to regain control of a 747?
I’m going to come off sounding like a pig; maybe I am missing a salient point, but the woman profiled in the NYT article about the sex trade does not come off as sympathetic. After 30 years and a 32-page rap sheet, it seems to me like she didn’t escape the sex trade, she retired from it.
I am all for anyone who has been forced against their will to participate in the sex trade to be able to seek relief, but there doesn’t seem to be anything at all preventative about this law.