This week’s roundup of the best and most interesting law and legal related links from around the web, including SCOTUS updates, falsely branded potato chips, love triangles that become international treaty violations, and more.
Your weekly round up of law and legal related stories from around the world, featuring dumb criminals, new federal court decisions, the Case of the Week and more.
A West Virginia Supreme Court Justice is federally indicted on 22 counts, including various fraud counts, false statements, and witness tampering. The man who wrote the book on corruption now stands accused of bilking the taxpayers who put him in office.
Chief Justice Roberts was nearly silent during oral argument, and then wrote the 6-3 majority opinion in today’s Obamacare case. Burt Likko replies to Justice Antonin Scalia’s accusations of through-the-looking-glass judicial activism.
Wednesday, the Supreme Court will entertain the latest challenge to Obamacare. If you can make it all the way through this post, you’re going to understand what’s going on way better than your neighbors. Added bonus: a significant detour through the jurisprudence of piscene spoliation, which you’ve no doubt all been anxiously awaiting.
Sometimes the law is a cruel mistress.
Burt Likko is no rail engineer. But he is a lawyer, and that means he can offer at least one suggestion to moderate the ongoing boondoggle that is the California High Speed Rail Project.
Congratulations to Utah and New Mexico.
Part VII of my continuing intermittent series of posts publicly worrying about California lighting its money on fire with a high-speed rail construction project.
It’s the first Monday in October. Burt Likko offers a preview of the high points of the Supreme Court’s docket, and some other interesting notes.
Will asked me to comment on this op-ed by Jack Goldsmith and Benjamin Wittes pleading with Congress and the President to formulate clear rules regarding detention policy in the War on Terror. Although I suspect I would strongly disagree with Goldsmith and Wittes about what the proposed rules should look like, I think the substance…
Note – Will and I exchanged a few emails on judicial activism, cultural change, and the courts’ public legitimacy in the wake of the Iowa gay marriage ruling. We’ve published an edited version below: Will: I’ve enjoyed your and Dave’s posts on originalism – are you familiar with Rosenberg’s “hollow hope” argument against court-instigated progressive change?…