Links for July 6, 2010: Kagan on Corporate Speech, an Easter Egg in the Health Care Bill, Knocking “Deficit Hawks”, others….

July 4, 2010
  1. Elena Kagan: How hard will she fight corporate free speech? (Photo: Doc Searls)

    An attorney’s job is to be a zealous advocate for her client. I becomes a sort of theater of the absurd. It does not necessarily follow that she will retain this mentality on the bench. On the other hand, perhaps it is not so wise to turn someone who has built a career arguing on behalf of the government into a Supreme Court Justice. Habits are sometimes hard to break. Contrast with Ralph Nader’s 36 Questions for Elena Kagan, wherein the author’s first ten questions attempt to gauge Kagan’s support for free corporate speech, seemingly unawares of her very office’s zealous efforts to limit it.

  2. I wouldn’t be surprised if this were one of many Easter eggs hidden in this bill that the American people did not bargain for. That’s generally how sprawling legislation works, is it not?

  3. The FAA has granted the company an extra 110 pounds to the LSA limit of 1,320 pounds maximum takeoff weight. Terrafugia says this will allow the extra safety equipment and a still allow the airplane to compete with other LSA aircraft in terms of range and the amount of payload it can carry.

    Kudos to the FAA for getting out of the way of progress. Read the rest of this entry »


links for 2010-02-04

February 5, 2010
  1. Huffington Post | Mark Green: Why Citizen’s United Is a Fraud: A Guide for Non-Lawyers

    I commented earlier that the parties must have wanted to talk about the First Amendment because it played such a prominent role in the oral arguments. Here it is clarified that this was not an issue in lower courts and it was not an issue during an earlier trip to the Supreme Court. So it looks like I need to go back a little further to research the origins.

  2. PBS | Bill Moyers Journal: Monica Youn and Zephyr Teachout

    The errors of thought: 1) Corporations all speak with the same voice. 2) They speak in opposition to “the people”. It just might be the case that some corporations may agree with some of “the people” on some of the issues. If you save money at Wal-mart, or if you buy a Ford automobile that enriches your life, then, in at least one sense, your interests are in line with those of the corporations. You will cheer for those corporations when they spend gobs of money to speak in your interest in opposition to other corporations who disagree. As to the judicial over-reaching, Youn and Teachout claim that the parties stipulated that this case would not be about a narrow issue and not the First Amendment. For what it’s worth, the oral argument available at SCOTUSWiki speaks of nothing but the First Amendment for at least the first ten pages of its transcript (all I’ve listened to so far: http://is.gd/7F0Kw). Somebody other than the justices was interested in discussing the issue.

    Update: I’m interested in reviewing the “activism” question. See the above link for more info. I need to review the case thoroughly and come to my own conclusion. Read the rest of this entry »