Moving against emerging litigation analytics and prediction sector, France bans publication of statistical information about individual judges’ decisions on criminal penalty [Artificial Lawyer, ABA Journal, David Post]
Eugene Volokh analyzes Washington high court’s unanimous ruling against Arlene’s Flowers and Barronelle Stutzman in same-sex marriage refusal case [Volokh Conspiracy, earlier on case here and here]
“Small claims court for copyright” idea would likely worsen the problem of copyright trolling [Mike Masnick, Techdirt]
Activists push laws and pledges intended to push charitable foundation giving (yet) further to left [James Piereson and Naomi Schaefer Riley, Washington Examiner]
Review of new book by libertarian economist David D. Friedman, “Legal Systems Very Different from Ours”: pirates, prisoners, gypsies, Amish, imperial Chinese, Jewish, Islamic, saga-period Icelandic, Somali, early Irish, Plains Indians, 18th century English, and ancient Athenian [Michael Huemer, Reason]
If the Supreme Court is going to let police stop your car on a pretext, they should at least insist that there *be* a pretext [Jonathan Blanks on Sievers v. Nebraska Cato cert petition]

One Comment

The flowers case assumes that the customer is just buying a bunch of flowers, but in a wedding the flower provider often must come to the wedding venue and essentially become part of the wedding. They may need to integrate their flowers into a gay theme for example and set it up at the tables. This could be very upsetting to a religious person. Perhaps someone should ask if they should be forced to set up flowers for a KKK meeting or a muslim florist set up for a pork producers convention. Another case of too much abstraction by courts.
- June 14, 2019 8:47 PM
- By cc