And, perhaps, political strategists for corporate interests helped
fund the efforts to elect the people (mostly Republican) who appointed
and confirmed the judges they wanted to advance their corporate
interests through a receptive judiciary.
On Sunday, December 19, 2010, Smith, Brad <BSmith@law.capital.edu> wrote:
Always like this kind of headline:
"Justices Offer Receptive Ear to Business Interests"
Or maybe, they were just deciding cases as they thought correct.
Bradley A. Smith
Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law
Capital University Law School
303 E. Broad St.
Columbus, OH 43215
(614) 236-6317
http://www.law.capital.edu/Faculty/Bios/bsmith.asp
From: election-law-bounces@mailman.lls.edu on behalf of Rick Hasen
Sent: Sun 12/19/2010 7:37 PM
To: Election Law
Subject: [EL] Electionlawblog news and commentary 12/19/10
December 19, 2010
"Justices Offer Receptive Ear to Business Interests"
The NY Times offers this front-page report <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/us/19roberts.html?_r=1&hp>, which discusses CU among other cases. It is based upon this study <http://epstein.law.northwestern.edu/research/RobertsBusiness.pdf> by Lee Epstein, William Landes, and Judge Richard Posner.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 09:35 AM <http://electionlawblog.org/archives/018341.html>
"City's Path to SMD Voting Explained"
The Boerne Star offers this report <http://boernestar.com/news/article_9e4fca34-09eb-11e0-97ae-001cc4c002e0.html>.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:48 AM <http://electionlawblog.org/archives/018340.html>
"Senate panel ban on stock for appointees but not itself seen as double standard"
The Washington Post offers this report <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/18/AR2010121802499.html?sid=ST2010121803710>. See also this interactive graphic <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/conflicting-senate-standards/>.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:38 AM <http://electionlawblog.org/archives/018339.html>
December 18, 2010
"Lame Duck Session Hasn't Been So Lame"
WaPo offers this report <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121707129.html>.
Posted by Rick Hasen at 07:53 PM <http://electionlawblog.org/archives/018338.html>
December 17, 2010
"OMB Reluctant to Release Comments On Ban of Lobbyists >From Advisory Panels"
BNA offers this report <http://news.bna.com/mpdm/MPDMWB/split_display.adp?fedfid=18848094&vname=mpebulallissues&fn=18848094&jd=a0c5t2z0h4&split=0>, which begins: "The Office of Management and Budget is declining to release, at least for now, public comments that it sought last month regarding the Obama administration's proposed formal guidelines to bar appointment of registered lobbyists to federal advisory panels."
Posted by Rick Hasen at 09:30 PM <http://electionlawblog.org/archives/018337.html>