4/10/1967: Loving v. Virginia argued.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/323gJZO
via IFTTT
Category: reason
Today in Supreme Court History: April 10, 1967
4/10/1967: Loving v. Virginia argued.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/323gJZO
via IFTTT
Breaking: SCOTUS Grants Injunction in Tandon v. Newsom
On Friday around 3:00 PM ET, the briefing concluded in Tandon v. Newsom. About nine hours later, the Supreme Court granted the injunction. The Court split 5-4. Chief Justice Roberts would have denied the injunction, though he did not explain why. Justice Kagan wrote a two page dissent. I will update this post shortly.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/31Yr1KK
via IFTTT
A Closer Who Look At Who Made The Cut For the SCOTUS Commission, and Who Didn’t
Earlier today, I wrote about President Biden’s new Supreme Court Commission. The administration selected three dozen attorneys for the part. Here, I will take a closer look at who made the cut, and who didn’t.
First, almost everyone on the list is a constitutional law professor–by design. Biden’s executive order stated that “Members of the Commission shall be distinguished constitutional scholars, retired members of the Federal judiciary, or other individuals having experience with and knowledge of the Federal judiciary and the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court).” If the President wanted to reform one of the most important and long-standing institutions in America, why on earth would he limit his search to “constitution scholars”? Constitutional law only makes up a small part of the Court’s docket. And–present company included–constitutional scholars have a very limited perspective of important societal issues.
So many important groups are not represented. With the exception of Keith Whittington, I do not see any other political scientists. Already, political scientists are fuming on the ConLaw list serve about this omission. Also, other than Alison LaCroix, I do not see any historians. (And I mean someone who holds an appointment in a history department; not someone who has published about legal history in the Green Bag). This group would really benefit from someone who has studied the New Deal period, and the various aspects of FDR’s court packing agenda. Also, I only counted two people who regularly appear before the Court: Walter Dellinger and Sherrilyn Ifill. Members of the Supreme Court bar should be on this commission. However, attorneys who make their living from the Court would never risk serving. Academic tenure is probably a prerequisite for service. Most importantly, the commission should have former members of Congress. They would have some expertise about what types of legislation may actually be feasible. I don’t think anyone on the list has ever held any sort of elective office. And only a handful went through Senate confirmation. This list is skewed towards ConLaw professors who live in the ivory tower.
Second, the members of this list reside in what I will call the SCOTUS club. Many of them clerked on the Court. They file briefs before the Court. They speak about the Court in public. They write about the Court. They recommend their students for SCOTUS clerkships. This group has every interest to not piss off the current members of the Court–even with academic tenure. We know how Justice Breyer feels. And the others probably agree. If any member supports Court expansion, clerkship applications from their students will be tainted. How can this group possibly be expected to make any serious reform efforts for an institution they are closely connected to? In this regard, political scientists would be sufficiently removed from the Court’s impetuous vortex to make objective recommendations.
Third, I hope the members in this club are ready for some serious trolling–both on the right and the left. Consider editorials from the Wall Street Journal and Slate. The WSJ attacked former Judge Tom Griffith for being too liberal.
Former appellate Judge Thomas Griffith, a Bush appointee, was a member of the Code of Conduct Committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference that tried to ban judges from belonging to the Federalist Society. Judge Griffith was going along for that ride until we reported the news and hundreds of federal judges objected.
And Slate attacked Griffith for being too conservative.
And what about Thomas Griffith, a former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit? Griffith stepped down in 2020 so Donald Trump could replace him with a partisan hack.
Neither claim is accurate or fair. But truth does’t matter. The members of this Commission must be destroyed. And make no mistake. People on the left, who are used to adulation by their students and the press, will soon be in for a rude awakening. Insufficient wokeness will provide a license for social media attacks. Moderation is not a virtue for partisans who demand more Justices. People like my friend Adam White are used to such nonsense. But many of the professors on this list lack any meaningful social media presence. I wish them luck. They are in for a rude awakening.
Fourth, there are many names absent from this list that I expected. Now, I mention these names with some hesitation. It is possible these people were offered the role, but they declined for a host of reasons. Maybe these people preferred to be on the outside, which would allow them to work the media. Who knows?
I expected Dan Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman to be on this committee. They wrote the leading article on options for Court reform. Maybe they will be witnesses, who can provide their unvarnished opinions in ways they could not as members. But they will not be in the room where it happens.
None of the members of the Take Back the Courts Advisory Board are on the list. Not Mark Tushnet. Not Michael Klarman. Not Samuel Moyn, who wrote a memo to Congress about using budget reconciliation to add seats. (Slate lamented his omission). Again, perhaps all of these members resisted an invitation because the commission was doomed to fail. But they lack any seat at the table.
Also, none of the leading law professors of Twitter are on the list. Not Leah Litman. Not Josh Chafetz. Not Steve Vladeck. (Slate lamented his omission). And so on. They are the most vocal avatars about “Court Reform.” And they were all left off the panel. Indeed, these people are probably best prepared to handle the social media onslaught we will see. Perhaps the Biden Administration did some sort of social media screen, and avoided anyone with controversial tweets. But then we have Laurence Tribe.
What are we left with? A group of mostly-reasonable people who will write a reasonable report that will make no one happy. I agree with Slate:
Looking at the membership and goals of this commission, it seems obvious that Biden does not really want to pursue court reform. Rather, he appears eager to scrape the issue off his plate by tossing it to (and I say this lovingly) a bunch of eggheads who have spent their careers marinating in the fantasy that the Supreme Court is apolitical
Perhaps the one up-shot of this experiment is that all 36 members will be able to write articles about their experience. Who knows? Yale Law School can host a two-day symposium with all of the members, and publish a collected book volume in a few years. At that point, there will still be nine Justices.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3d2Lq7M
via IFTTT
Breaking: SCOTUS Grants Injunction in Tandon v. Newsom
On Friday around 3:00 PM ET, the briefing concluded in Tandon v. Newsom. About nine hours later, the Supreme Court granted the injunction. The Court split 5-4. Chief Justice Roberts would have denied the injunction, though he did not explain why. Justice Kagan wrote a two page dissent. I will update this post shortly.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/31Yr1KK
via IFTTT
A Closer Who Look At Who Made The Cut For the SCOTUS Commission, and Who Didn’t
Earlier today, I wrote about President Biden’s new Supreme Court Commission. The administration selected three dozen attorneys for the part. Here, I will take a closer look at who made the cut, and who didn’t.
First, almost everyone on the list is a constitutional law professor–by design. Biden’s executive order stated that “Members of the Commission shall be distinguished constitutional scholars, retired members of the Federal judiciary, or other individuals having experience with and knowledge of the Federal judiciary and the Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court).” If the President wanted to reform one of the most important and long-standing institutions in America, why on earth would he limit his search to “constitution scholars”? Constitutional law only makes up a small part of the Court’s docket. And–present company included–constitutional scholars have a very limited perspective of important societal issues.
So many important groups are not represented. With the exception of Keith Whittington, I do not see any other political scientists. Already, political scientists are fuming on the ConLaw list serve about this omission. Also, other than Alison LaCroix, I do not see any historians. (And I mean someone who holds an appointment in a history department; not someone who has published about legal history in the Green Bag). This group would really benefit from someone who has studied the New Deal period, and the various aspects of FDR’s court packing agenda. Also, I only counted two people who regularly appear before the Court: Walter Dellinger and Sherrilyn Ifill. Members of the Supreme Court bar should be on this commission. However, attorneys who make their living from the Court would never risk serving. Academic tenure is probably a prerequisite for service. Most importantly, the commission should have former members of Congress. They would have some expertise about what types of legislation may actually be feasible. I don’t think anyone on the list has ever held any sort of elective office. And only a handful went through Senate confirmation. This list is skewed towards ConLaw professors who live in the ivory tower.
Second, the members of this list reside in what I will call the SCOTUS club. Many of them clerked on the Court. They file briefs before the Court. They speak about the Court in public. They write about the Court. They recommend their students for SCOTUS clerkships. This group has every interest to not piss off the current members of the Court–even with academic tenure. We know how Justice Breyer feels. And the others probably agree. If any member supports Court expansion, clerkship applications from their students will be tainted. How can this group possibly be expected to make any serious reform efforts for an institution they are closely connected to? In this regard, political scientists would be sufficiently removed from the Court’s impetuous vortex to make objective recommendations.
Third, I hope the members in this club are ready for some serious trolling–both on the right and the left. Consider editorials from the Wall Street Journal and Slate. The WSJ attacked former Judge Tom Griffith for being too liberal.
Former appellate Judge Thomas Griffith, a Bush appointee, was a member of the Code of Conduct Committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference that tried to ban judges from belonging to the Federalist Society. Judge Griffith was going along for that ride until we reported the news and hundreds of federal judges objected.
And Slate attacked Griffith for being too conservative.
And what about Thomas Griffith, a former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit? Griffith stepped down in 2020 so Donald Trump could replace him with a partisan hack.
Neither claim is accurate or fair. But truth does’t matter. The members of this Commission must be destroyed. And make no mistake. People on the left, who are used to adulation by their students and the press, will soon be in for a rude awakening. Insufficient wokeness will provide a license for social media attacks. Moderation is not a virtue for partisans who demand more Justices. People like my friend Adam White are used to such nonsense. But many of the professors on this list lack any meaningful social media presence. I wish them luck. They are in for a rude awakening.
Fourth, there are many names absent from this list that I expected. Now, I mention these names with some hesitation. It is possible these people were offered the role, but they declined for a host of reasons. Maybe these people preferred to be on the outside, which would allow them to work the media. Who knows?
I expected Dan Epps and Ganesh Sitaraman to be on this committee. They wrote the leading article on options for Court reform. Maybe they will be witnesses, who can provide their unvarnished opinions in ways they could not as members. But they will not be in the room where it happens.
None of the members of the Take Back the Courts Advisory Board are on the list. Not Mark Tushnet. Not Michael Klarman. Not Samuel Moyn, who wrote a memo to Congress about using budget reconciliation to add seats. (Slate lamented his omission). Again, perhaps all of these members resisted an invitation because the commission was doomed to fail. But they lack any seat at the table.
Also, none of the leading law professors of Twitter are on the list. Not Leah Litman. Not Josh Chafetz. Not Steve Vladeck. (Slate lamented his omission). And so on. They are the most vocal avatars about “Court Reform.” And they were all left off the panel. Indeed, these people are probably best prepared to handle the social media onslaught we will see. Perhaps the Biden Administration did some sort of social media screen, and avoided anyone with controversial tweets. But then we have Laurence Tribe.
What are we left with? A group of mostly-reasonable people who will write a reasonable report that will make no one happy. I agree with Slate:
Looking at the membership and goals of this commission, it seems obvious that Biden does not really want to pursue court reform. Rather, he appears eager to scrape the issue off his plate by tossing it to (and I say this lovingly) a bunch of eggheads who have spent their careers marinating in the fantasy that the Supreme Court is apolitical
Perhaps the one up-shot of this experiment is that all 36 members will be able to write articles about their experience. Who knows? Yale Law School can host a two-day symposium with all of the members, and publish a collected book volume in a few years. At that point, there will still be nine Justices.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3d2Lq7M
via IFTTT
“Provably False” to Call Club Owner “Tragically Pathetic”?
The Drake is apparently “an upscale, stylish jazz supper club” in Laguna Beach, “known for its award-winning chef and highly professional live music.” Defendant allegedly posted the following review (according to plaintiff, motivated by plaintiff’s earlier successful lawsuit against defendant, unrelated to the club):
Great concept but poorly executed. Egotistical condescending attitude from what appeared to be the owner whose some old dude who was strutting around like a pompous jerk who thinks that he’s cool. Tragically pathetic. Food was ok but way overpriced. The singer was straight out of the wedding & Bar Mitzvah scene.
Plaintiff sued (Glasser & The Drake in Laguna, LLC v. Berzner (C.D. Cal.), just removed to federal court today), arguing among other things that,
[The statements in the review] are provably false …: 1. At no time did Glasser display an “egotistical[,] condescending attitude.” 2. At no time was Glasser “strutting around like a pompous jerk who thinks he’s cool.” 3. At no time did Glasser display any behavior that was “pathetic.” 4. In fact, at no time did Defendant even see Glasser that evening at The Drake except very briefly when Defendant was asked to leave because of his inappropriate conduct.
Not sure how these statements are provably false, as opposed to obvious opinion. Oh, and as a result of this one review, out of 171 (which amount to an impressive 4½-star average), the Complaint alleges,
Glasser has suffered loss of his reputation, shame, mortification, and hurt feelings all to his general damage,
to the tune of “general damages in the amount of $200,000,” not even counting punitive damages.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3s386c3
via IFTTT
“Provably False” to Call Club Owner “Tragically Pathetic”?
The Drake is apparently “an upscale, stylish jazz supper club” in Laguna Beach, “known for its award-winning chef and highly professional live music.” Defendant allegedly posted the following review (according to plaintiff, motivated by plaintiff’s earlier successful lawsuit against defendant, unrelated to the club):
Great concept but poorly executed. Egotistical condescending attitude from what appeared to be the owner whose some old dude who was strutting around like a pompous jerk who thinks that he’s cool. Tragically pathetic. Food was ok but way overpriced. The singer was straight out of the wedding & Bar Mitzvah scene.
Plaintiff sued (Glasser & The Drake in Laguna, LLC v. Berzner (C.D. Cal.), just removed to federal court today), arguing among other things that,
[The statements in the review] are provably false …: 1. At no time did Glasser display an “egotistical[,] condescending attitude.” 2. At no time was Glasser “strutting around like a pompous jerk who thinks he’s cool.” 3. At no time did Glasser display any behavior that was “pathetic.” 4. In fact, at no time did Defendant even see Glasser that evening at The Drake except very briefly when Defendant was asked to leave because of his inappropriate conduct.
Not sure how these statements are provably false, as opposed to obvious opinion. Oh, and as a result of this one review, out of 171 (which amount to an impressive 4½-star average), the Complaint alleges,
Glasser has suffered loss of his reputation, shame, mortification, and hurt feelings all to his general damage,
to the tune of “general damages in the amount of $200,000,” not even counting punitive damages.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3s386c3
via IFTTT
Don’t Suspend Vaccine Patents, We’re Already on Track To Vaccinate 7 Billion People in 2021
Vaccinating billions of people across the globe is an urgent necessity for curbing the COVID-19 pandemic. As long as the virus continues to circulate more or less freely in the world, it may mutate into variants that the current suite of highly successful vaccines cannot suppress. Assuming that achieving herd immunity requires that 70 percent of the world’s population be immunized, that amounts to 5.4 billion fully inoculated people (some of whom would be among the several hundred million who have already recovered from the disease after being infected).
How can we speed up the process of getting vaccines distributed around the world? One proposal being floated at the World Trade Organization by a group of around 100 poorer countries is to temporarily suspend intellectual property rules related to COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. Activist groups like the People’s Vaccine Alliance assert that suspending the vaccine patents “will help break Big Pharma monopolies and increase supplies so there are enough doses for everyone, everywhere.” In addition, leading American politicians including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) are urging President Joe Biden to agree to this step.
This is a bad idea. First, vaccines are complicated biological products that cannot be reverse-engineered the way many regular pharmaceuticals can be. Additionally, manufacturing them takes special expertise and purpose-built facilities that are simply not available outside of most developed countries. Releasing vaccine recipes won’t do poor countries any practical good with respect to actually getting doses distributed and administered to their citizens.
Although clearly self-interested, the director general of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations Thomas B. Cueni correctly argued in his New York Times op-ed:
Dismantling patent protection would do nothing to expand access to vaccines or to boost global manufacturing capacity. Research scientists develop vaccines in record time because they have the security and resources that come with a robust system of protection for their intellectual property. That system is crucial to allowing companies to create the vaccines we need for wide distribution.
So how feasible is getting 5.4 billion people vaccinated by the end of this year? Let’s take a quick look at the promises and projections made by the various vaccine makers both currently approved and likely to be approved by the middle of this year.
Pfizer/BioNTech: 2.5 billion doses of the two-dose mRNA vaccine.
Moderna: 700 million doses of the two-dose mRNA vaccine; 1.4 billion in 2022.
CureVac: 455 million doses of the two-dose mRNA vaccine.
Johnson & Johnson: 1 billion doses of the one-dose viral vector.
CanSinoBIO: 500 million doses of the one-dose viral vector.
Sputnik V: 300 million doses of the two-dose viral vector.
AstraZeneca: 3 billion doses of the two-dose viral vector.
Novavax: 2 billion dose capacity of the two-dose spike protein.
Sinovac: 2 billion dose capacity of the two-dose killed virus.
Bharat Biotech: 700 million doses of the two-dose killed virus.
Making the huge assumption that all will go well with testing and manufacturing, the above figures suggest that there could be enough COVID-19 vaccines to fully vaccinate more than 7 billion people by the end of this year. If this is the case, supporting the efforts of groups like the COVAX consortium to get vaccines to poor countries, not seizing vaccine makers’ patents, is the real way to save lives and end the pandemic.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3t9Z9zk
via IFTTT
Don’t Suspend Vaccine Patents, We’re Already on Track To Vaccinate 7 Billion People in 2021
Vaccinating billions of people across the globe is an urgent necessity for curbing the COVID-19 pandemic. As long as the virus continues to circulate more or less freely in the world, it may mutate into variants that the current suite of highly successful vaccines cannot suppress. Assuming that achieving herd immunity requires that 70 percent of the world’s population be immunized, that amounts to 5.4 billion fully inoculated people (some of whom would be among the several hundred million who have already recovered from the disease after being infected).
How can we speed up the process of getting vaccines distributed around the world? One proposal being floated at the World Trade Organization by a group of around 100 poorer countries is to temporarily suspend intellectual property rules related to COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. Activist groups like the People’s Vaccine Alliance assert that suspending the vaccine patents “will help break Big Pharma monopolies and increase supplies so there are enough doses for everyone, everywhere.” In addition, leading American politicians including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–Calif.) are urging President Joe Biden to agree to this step.
This is a bad idea. First, vaccines are complicated biological products that cannot be reverse-engineered the way many regular pharmaceuticals can be. Additionally, manufacturing them takes special expertise and purpose-built facilities that are simply not available outside of most developed countries. Releasing vaccine recipes won’t do poor countries any practical good with respect to actually getting doses distributed and administered to their citizens.
Although clearly self-interested, the director general of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations Thomas B. Cueni correctly argued in his New York Times op-ed:
Dismantling patent protection would do nothing to expand access to vaccines or to boost global manufacturing capacity. Research scientists develop vaccines in record time because they have the security and resources that come with a robust system of protection for their intellectual property. That system is crucial to allowing companies to create the vaccines we need for wide distribution.
So how feasible is getting 5.4 billion people vaccinated by the end of this year? Let’s take a quick look at the promises and projections made by the various vaccine makers both currently approved and likely to be approved by the middle of this year.
Pfizer/BioNTech: 2.5 billion doses of the two-dose mRNA vaccine.
Moderna: 700 million doses of the two-dose mRNA vaccine; 1.4 billion in 2022.
CureVac: 455 million doses of the two-dose mRNA vaccine.
Johnson & Johnson: 1 billion doses of the one-dose viral vector.
CanSinoBIO: 500 million doses of the one-dose viral vector.
Sputnik V: 300 million doses of the two-dose viral vector.
AstraZeneca: 3 billion doses of the two-dose viral vector.
Novavax: 2 billion dose capacity of the two-dose spike protein.
Sinovac: 2 billion dose capacity of the two-dose killed virus.
Bharat Biotech: 700 million doses of the two-dose killed virus.
Making the huge assumption that all will go well with testing and manufacturing, the above figures suggest that there could be enough COVID-19 vaccines to fully vaccinate more than 7 billion people by the end of this year. If this is the case, supporting the efforts of groups like the COVAX consortium to get vaccines to poor countries, not seizing vaccine makers’ patents, is the real way to save lives and end the pandemic.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3t9Z9zk
via IFTTT