I’ve got an opinion piece up at Forbes.com on today’s Supreme Court decision in Ricci v. DiStefano, the New Haven firefighter reverse-discrimination case. The title: “Sued If You Do, Sued If You Don’t: Through the Looking Glass on Affirmative Action” (& link thanks to Ramesh Ponnuru, NRO “Corner”, Daniel Schwartz, Connecticut Employment Law Blog, Jon Hyman, Ohio Employment Law (to whom thanks for the kind comments as well), and Scott Greenfield, Simple Justice).
“Chambliss blocks regulatory pick over animal lawsuits”
Speaking of renowned Chicago law professors with reputations that cut across ideological lines: “Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) has blocked President Obama’s candidate for regulation czar, Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, because Sunstein has argued that animals should have the right to sue humans in court.” [The Hill; mostly favorable coverage of Sunstein’s nomination and views at my other site, Point of Law].
Bar “linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials”?
Heads are still shaking over what would appear to be a non-satirical proposal from Judge Richard Posner:
…Expanding copyright law to bar online access to copyrighted materials without the copyright holder’s consent, or to bar linking to or paraphrasing copyrighted materials without the copyright holder’s consent, might be necessary to keep free riding on content financed by online newspapers from so impairing the incentive to create costly news-gathering operations that news services like Reuters and the Associated Press would become the only professional, nongovernmental sources of news and opinion.
More: Jeff Jarvis notices other dubious ideas on enforceable “exclusivity” floating about. And more thoughts from Carolyn Elefant at Legal Blog Watch and David Post @ Volokh.
UK library: no hot coffee allowed
An elderly club that had been meeting for four years every Tuesday at the Eye Library in Eye, Cambridgeshire, were told that they could no longer have hot tea or coffee at their meetings, lest it be accidentally spilled on a toddler. They’ve retreated to holding meetings in members’ homes. [Telegraph] Hat tip to F.R.
Private school, the disabled-rights way
Last week the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the parents of an Oregon student diagnosed with ADHD and other problems could send him to an expensive private school and bill the government for the cost, even if he had not previously been enrolled in a public school special education program. San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders discusses the case and quotes me on a couple of points:
Walter Olson of overlawyered.com nailed the problem with the majority ruling when he opined in an e-mail, “The impulse to get a better shake for one’s kid is universal, but it’s disproportionately wealthy and clever parents, with their hired lawyers and experts, who succeed in using these rules to obtain a private school education at public expense. In this case, the question was whether parents should at least try the public schools’ proffer of special-ed services before declaring them inadequate, which doesn’t seem to me to be too much to ask.” …
Noting that Souter’s dissent was joined by conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Olson noted, “I’m still trying to figure out why being progressive on this issue means siding with the private schools and affluent parents, while the conservative justices are the ones to defend the public school ideal of universal service.”
Saunders also quotes my distinguished Manhattan Institute colleague Jay Greene, who takes a different view. It’s worth noting, by the way, that parents of non-disabled students continue to have no right at all to obtain reimbursement for private alternatives should they decide the public schools are failing their kids. More: Tamar Lewin, New York Times; Zach Lowe, American Lawyer.
And: Scott Greenfield also takes a different view, and Jay Greene explains his reasoning further in comments and at his site.
Voting on bills without reading them
The practice seems to have been taken to an extreme in Congress with the pending “cap and trade” bill. [David Freddoso, D.C. Examiner]
CPSIA and … automotive products?
Nearly all the outcry about the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 has focused on its absurd and impracticable rules for products intended for kids twelve and under, such as apparel, books, toys, used items and so forth. But the law is actually a lot broader than that, imposing many new requirements and burdens that apply to wider classes of consumer products, whether or not intended for use by kids. Here’s the story of one miscellaneous provision causing major headaches for makers and distributors of specialty chemicals used in car care and maintenance (Paul Laurenza, “Product safety law imposes major burdens on auto suppliers”, Aftermarket Business, Apr. 3, via ShopFloor)
Goading Mickey Kaus into blogging
Yes, I have much to answer for. Like him I’ve forgotten the exact words of our ten-year-old conversation, but his paraphrase sounds right.
Getting your ducks in a row
Before asking a federal judge to grant preliminary approval for a class action settlement with Ameritrade over alleged privacy breaches, make sure that your “client,” the class representative, isn’t going to tell the court he opposes the settlement. In re TD Ameritrade Account Holder Litigation, Case No. C 07-2852 VRW (N.D. Cal.) ($1.87M for the attorneys, coupons for the class.).
Australian prosecutors’ brief: 24,736 pages
Oz taxpayers spent more than $A1 million securing the conviction of murder defendant/jailhouse lawyer Hugo Rich, who employed many colorful and wearying tactics in his defense on charges of murdering a security guard during a holdup. [Melbourne Herald-Sun]