[Volokh] David Bernstein: How About Getting the the Kennedy Family to Pay for This?:
Posted by David Bernstein: How About Getting the the Kennedy Family to Pay for This?: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253884481 [1]Boston Globe: A large military spending bill moving through Congress contains a little-noticed outlay for Boston that has nothing to do with national defense: $20 million for an educational institute honoring late Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts. It's not like the U.S. isn't broke or anything, and it's not like the Kennedys aren't filthy rich. And, if we truly wanted to honor Sen. Kennedy's legacy, shouldn't the money be going to the poor or something? A very nice example of reverse Robin Hood--let's take from the taxpayers, and give to the Kennedys. References 1. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/09/25/watchdog_groups_rap_20m_earmark_for_kennedy_institute/ ___ Volokh mailing list Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
[Volokh] David Bernstein: Because the Democrats Believe in Government:
Posted by David Bernstein: Because the Democrats Believe in Government: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253886830 During the Bush years, we constantly heard the refrain, pushed especially by Paul Krugman, that the government was doing incompetent and corrupt things because conservative Republicans don't believe in government. Put the government in the hands of true-believing liberal Democrats, and incompetence and corruption will virtually disappear. This always struck me as foolish, in part because the problems with government competence and integrity are structural, not individual, and in part because it required one to believe [1]Krugman's fantasy that the Republican elite during the Bush years was dominated by wild-eyed libertarians intent on drowning the government in a bathtub, or something like that. Anyway, here's the latest example of competence an incorruptibility from our liberal Democrat elites: The Food and Drug Administration said Thursday that four New Jersey congressmen and its own former commissioner unduly influenced the process that led to its decision last year to approve a patch for injured knees, an approval it is now revisiting. The agency's scientific reviewers repeatedly and unanimously over many years decided that the device, known as Menaflex and manufactured by ReGen Biologics Inc., was unsafe because the device often failed, forcing patients to get another operation. But after receiving what an F.D.A. report described as extreme, unusual and persistent pressure from four Democrats from New Jersey � Senators Robert Menendez and Frank R. Lautenberg and Representatives Frank Pallone Jr. and Steven R. Rothman � agency managers overruled the scientists and approved the device for sale in December. All four legislators made their inquiries within a few months of receiving significant campaign contributions from ReGen, which is based in New Jersey, but all said they had acted appropriately and were not influenced by the money. References 1. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_08_31-2008_09_06.shtml#1220310341 ___ Volokh mailing list Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
[Volokh] Eugene Volokh: Times Less Than:
Posted by Eugene Volokh: Times Less Than: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253897118 An e-mail from a reader reminded me again of [1]this debate -- some people argue that A times less than B is mathematically incorrect, simply wrong, and so on. The theory is that times refers to multiplication, so 5 times less than B to mean B/5 is mistaken, though 5 times more than to mean 5xB (or possibly 6xB) would be fine. This prompted me to do some more searching, and discover not only a usage of this phrase by [2]Jonathan Swift (via Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of English Usage), but also by [3]Isaac Newton (If the Diameters of the Circles ... be made three times less than before, the Mixture will be also three times less; if ten times less, the Mixture will be ten times less), Sir William Herschel (remember that the sun on Saturn appears to be a hundred time less than on the earth), Erasmus Darwin, [4]Robert Boyle, [5]John Locke, and more. Nor is this some archaic usage; it remains routine today. What's going on here? The correspondent whose message prompted me to repost about this suggested that A times less than B might be a [6]calque -- a loan translation, esp. one resulting from bilingual interference in which the internal structure of a borrowed word or phrase is maintained but its morphemes are replaced by those of the native language, as German halbinsel for peninsula -- from my native Russian, where X raz men'she [or men'eye] chem is routine. But that hardly explains Newton and Herschel, I think. Rather, I think what's going on in the critics' minds is itself a sort of calque, though a calque from mathematics to human language. It's true that if you view times as x and less as -, then A times less than B is either literally meaningless, or corresponds to B-AxB. But of course in English, including the English used by scientists of the highest caliber, times doesn't always mean x and less doesn't always mean -. We see that from the very examples I just gave, as well as from observed common usage. Nor can you somehow disprove my assertion by logic of the but 'times' means multiplication! sort. That is the logic of the calque, and while calques sometimes do create usage (in Russian, for instance, the word for rhinoceros is nosorog, since rhino- translates as nos [nose] and -ceros translates as rog [horn]), sometimes they don't. If you want to know what is an acceptable form (though just one of several acceptable forms) in English, including scientific English, is, the actual usage of Newton and Herschel -- and, I suspect, countless lesser lights of today -- tells us more than the abstract logic of literal translation from mathematical symbols. This having been said, it may well be that A times less than B is suboptimal usage, precisely because it annoys enough people. (I am skeptical that it genuinely confuses a considerable number of people.) But to say that the usage is simply wrong or mathematically incorrect is to misunderstand the connection between mathematics and English, including the English used by people who are masters of mathematics. Finally, a request for people who want to argue the contrary: Please preface your comments with Isaac Newton was wrong about how to talk in English about mathematics, and I am right, because References 1. http://www.volokh.com/posts/1150829292.shtml 2. http://books.google.com/books?id=2yJusP0vrdgCpg=PA908dq=%22times+less+than%22+%22dictionary+of+english+usage%22#v=onepageq=f=false 3. http://books.google.com/books?id=zhM1t2fj4KcCpg=PA66lpg=PA66dq=newton+%22three+times+less+than+before%22source=blots=KfcxGfbutBsig=QjfWcPnEJEojKuVEXr3_xNCk-X0hl=enei=_u-8SueEOYGwsgO64_DdAQsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=1 4. http://books.google.com/books?id=BCAOQAAJpg=PA7lpg=PA7dq=%22had+they+been+ten+times+less+than%22source=blots=C5tt_maq1usig=horRd_Eq1loq_CXjqc_7EM4zkxwhl=enei=WO-8SrT1KJKqtgPzm5W7BAsa=Xoi=book_resultct=resultresnum=1#v=onepageq=%22had%20they%20been%20ten%20times%20less%20than%22f=false 5. http://books.google.com/books?id=-uSzdaXce5gCpg=PA297dq=%22times+less+than%22lr=as_drrb_is=bas_minm_is=0as_miny_is=as_maxm_is=0as_maxy_is=1800num=100as_brr=0#v=onepageq=%22times%20less%20than%22f=false 6. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/calque ___ Volokh mailing list Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
[Volokh] Eugene Volokh: School Children Singing the Praises of President Obama (Apparently as a Public School Class Project):
Posted by Eugene Volokh: School Children Singing the Praises of President Obama (Apparently as a Public School Class Project): http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253897939 According to [1]Fox News, The commissioner of New Jersey's Department of Education ordered a review on Friday following the posting of a YouTube video depicting school children singing the praises of President Obama. Video of the students at the Burlington, N.J., school shows them singing songs seemingly overflowing with campaign slogans and praise for Barack Hussein Obama, repeatedly chanting the president's name and celebrating his accomplishments, including his great plans to make this country's economy No. 1 again. One song that the children were taught quotes directly from the spiritual Jesus Loves the Little Children, though Jesus' name is replaced with Obama's: He said red, yellow, black or white/All are equal in his sight. Barack Hussein Obama. [EMBED] There were apparently death threats sent to the principal; of course, such threats are crimes, and should be punished. But I would hope that those responsible for the school project are properly disciplined as well; public school classrooms shouldn't be used to sing the praises of any sitting (or recent) political figure, whether Bush or Obama or anyone else. That's not a constitutional matter -- there's no Establishment Clause for political speech, and of course schools do routinely glorify past political figures, whether Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, or what have you. They also rightly express a calm respect for current elected officials; when an official comes to visit, for instance, it's proper for teachers to give the normal praise offered such visitors, and for students to join in. But that some degree of ideological indoctrination and glorification is inevitable in government-run schools, and is in fact one of the purposes of such schools (which have long been justified as means of assimilating children into American democratic culture), doesn't mean that it's proper to lead children in songs praising the current President or particular aspects of his political agenda (Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans / To make this country's economy number one again!). I would have thought that this was pretty clear, and it probably is to most teachers in most schools -- but not, unfortunately, in this instance. References 1. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/24/elementary-school-students-reportedly-taught-songs-praising-president-obama/ ___ Volokh mailing list Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
[Volokh] Orin Kerr: The Strange Practice of Indicting in the Conjunctive:
Posted by Orin Kerr: The Strange Practice of Indicting in the Conjunctive: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253899387 [1]The BLT has a story about a federal criminal case in which the Government forgot to indict in the conjunctive -- that is, it forgot to turn or into and. According to the story, DOJ is going to re-indict the case to avoid the error. It may be easier for DOJ to do that, but it's worth pointing out the silliness of the rule that indictments should be in the conjunctive. It's a holdover from early common law pleading, and it makes no sense for modern statutory crimes. For those unfamiliar with the rule, [2]federal court precedent says that if a federal criminal statute makes it a crime to do A, B, or C, the indictment should allege that the defendant did A, B, and C. That is, the prosecutor should switch the or to and, replacing the disjunctive with the conjunctive. Why do that? The cases say that the reason is to avoid uncertainty: If the indictment uses or, then the defendant has no notice of what the government is charging: If the indictment uses and, then there is no uncertainty. But here's the trick: The government only needs to prove one of the theories at trial, and the conviction will be upheld on appeal so long as only one of the theories has been proved. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this rule is foolish. Mechanically turning or to and doesn't actually provide any additional notice. And judges have been noting that this rule is nonsensical for a long, long time. Way back in 1757, Lord Mansfield attacked the rule as useless: Upon indictments, it has been so determined, that an alternative charge is not good, as �forged or caused to be forged�; though only one need be proved, if laid conjunctively, as �forged and caused to be forged.� But I do not see the reason of it; the substance is exactly the same; the defendant must come prepared against both. And it makes no difference to him in any respect. Rex v. Middlehurst, 1 Burr. 399, 98 English Reports 369 (1757). As another court wrote in 1945: The difference between disjunctive and conjunctive pleading is mostly the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee, and modern jurisprudence, which appraises substance and not form as its essence, accords to such useless learning only a nodding acquaintance. What earthly difference is there between �or� and �and� in a count when the end result is that defendant in both instances must be prepared to meet both or all charges? Commonwealth v. Schuler, 43 A.2d 646 (Pa. Super. 1945). The obvious question is, how did this rule come about? I spent some time trying to hunt this down in the summer of 2008, together with the help of a research assistant, and I was never able to come up with a firm answer. The rule had already been established by the time of the early authorities in English, and neither I nor my research assistant knew the Latin or Law French needed to read the earlier decisions that might have first announced or first justified the rule. As best I could tell from the early English cases, the origins of the rule were in early common law pleading rules in an era of common law crimes. Under those rules, each indictment had to allege a single crime. So an indictment couldn't allege that a defendant had committed murder or larceny or burglary; it had to give actual notice of the crime alleged. But in an era of common law crimes, the precise boundaries of how much notice was required was never entirely clear: If it was a crime to stab, punch, or kick someone, it wasn't entirely clear if that was one offense that could be committed three ways or three different offenses. Exactly how this led to the modern rule of indict in the conjunctive, prove in the disjunctive isn't precisely clear. But I found some early English cases in which a defendant had actually committed the offense in all of possible ways, and prosecutors just charged all of the means conjunctively in the indictment. The indictment thus changed the or to and. This got around any possible pleading objections based on lack of notice, as the notice was very clear. But then you had some cases where the defendant would challenge the evidence as to all of the means; perhaps, if it was a crime to stab, punch, or kick someone, the government had only proved punching and kicking but not stabbing. Courts responded, sensibly enough, that if the crime could be committed any of the different ways, the government had proved the offense if it had proved any of the different ways. My sense of what happened is that the warnings about notice turned into a general rule that served no real purpose. To be careful, prosecutors started just
[Volokh] Eugene Volokh: New Low: Beck and Right-Wing Media Minions Fearmongering About Kids to Attack Progressives:
Posted by Eugene Volokh: New Low: Beck and Right-Wing Media Minions Fearmongering About Kids to Attack Progressives: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253900627 Is it just me, or is that [1]headline just a bit [2]rhetorically over the top? (No, the last link doesn't make a moral analogy, just an analogy in the rhetoric.) New low; right-wing media minions (why not [3]nattering nabobs of negativism?); fearmongering -- just a bit much for a credible debunking, it seems to me. This is especially so when part of the fearmongering that is supposedly debunked is actually not bunk at all; here's the response the site (Media Matters) gives as to the Obama praise song incident: Conservative media fearmonger about unauthorized YouTube video of school kids praising Obama The Drudge Report: SHOCK VIDEO: School kids taught to praise Obama ... On September 23, Internet gossip Matt Drudge linked to a YouTube video purportedly showing [s]chool kids taught to praise Obama. The video, showing young schoolchildren in New Jersey singing a song about Obama, provides no evidence that the children or their parents consented to having the video posted on YouTube. America's Newsroom: Many parents ... just don't want this sort of political cheerleading, if you will, in the classroom. On Fox News' America's Newsroom, hosts Bill Hemmer and Megyn Kelly aired the video and asserted that many parents don't want kids singing praises to Obama. Before showing the video, Hemmer said: It is one thing to have kids say the Pledge of Allegiance, but we're not sure what's going on with the videotape now online when students are singing praises to the president and why some parents are saying, not with my kid. Later, Kelly teased the video by saying, it's getting attention on The Drudge Report website this morning. It shows young children singing the praises, quite literally, of the president. She continued: KELLY: Well, information posted with the clip says that it is from the Bernice Young School in Burlington Township, New Jersey, but the school won't exactly confirm that for us. In fact, they won't confirm anything for us. We have made multiple attempts to ask them about these students, about this tape and how this came about. We are hoping that they can get back to us shortly, so that we can clear this up. Already we're getting a lot of emails from our viewers. It went on from there -- you saw a clip of the children singing. Then came a bit of a chant by the children where they praised President Obama for all his great accomplishments, saying, quote, You're number one. Hooray, Mr. President, we're really proud of you. And on and on it goes. You know, many would have no problem with this. Many parents would, and just don't want this sort of political cheerleading, if you will, in the classroom. We just don't know the details behind the tape, but it certainly caught our attention and we're trying to find out from, again, from this school, which we have multiple calls into. The B. Bernice Young Elementary School, Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, New Jersey. And as soon as we have it, you'll have it. [America's Newsroom, 9/24/09] The Fox Nation: School Children Sing Songs of Obama's Glory. On September 25, the allegedly fair and balanced TheFoxNation.com posted the video with the headline School Children Sing Songs of Obama's Glory. fearmongerkids2 Beck: Song sounds like a hymnal for a dictator. On the September 24 edition of his radio show, Beck said: I want to show you, and tonight I'm going to play the tape for you, of indoctrination that is going on. We've been going through all of this indoctrination for the last few days. Tomorrow, I do a full hour live with moms, and their children, and we're going to talk a little bit about things they're concerned with -- and indoctrination I know will come up. Play this, this is -- do we know where this is from? Elementary School in Burlington, New Jersey. The B. Bernice Young Elementary School. The woman who did this is, I believe, an activist, she's the principal, or the teacher. I don't have her name here. But listen to -- this is -- these are elementary school children, and they are singing a song for Barack Obama. After Beck played audio of the video and read the words out loud, he said it sounded like a hymnal for a dictator. ... Does anybody see what's going on? Does anybody see what's going on? Later, Beck said: This is indoctrination. This should horrify the American people. [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Show, 9/25/09] Beck also promoted the video September 24 on his Twitter feed: RT
[Volokh] Eugene Volokh: The Principal of a New Jersey Elementary School
Posted by Eugene Volokh: The Principal of a New Jersey Elementary School http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253901868 The principal of a New Jersey elementary school where young students were videotaped singing the praises of President Obama is making no apologies for the videotape and says she would allow the performance again if she could, according to [three] parents who spoke with her Thursday night Parent Jim Angelillo said [Principal Denise] King told him the lesson was merely part of Black History month, and not an attempt to indoctrinate students, as critics have charged King has long been a fan of Obama, hanging pictures of the president in her school's hallways and touting her trip to his inauguration in the school yearbook. Included in the full-page yearbook spread were Obama campaign slogans (Yes we can! Yes we did!) and photos King took in Washington on Jan. 20, when she attended the inauguration. There also were photos taken at the school depicting students doing Obama-themed activities about their hopes for the future, featuring posters of Obama Attempts to reach King on Friday were unsuccessful I should stress that one should always be cautious about second-hand accounts of oral conversations; it may be that the parents misunderstood the principal, or that important context was omitted. That's why I hope that the principal, who is after all a public servant, does indeed publicly explain her position herself. ___ Volokh mailing list Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
[Volokh] Eugene Volokh: Some Thoughts on Multiple Blog Posts:
Posted by Eugene Volokh: Some Thoughts on Multiple Blog Posts: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253906635 Some commenters said they were surprised that I've posted several times about the [1]Obama praise song issue; they suggested that the matter is minor enough not to merit three posts (or, I suppose, now four, depending on how you count this one). How many article a newspaper publishes about a particular incident may well reflect the importance of the incident. But bloggers operate differently. Among other things, (1) bloggers are more likely to post about amusing things they found in the course of researching the story, (2) bloggers are more likely to post follow-up factual updates, even relatively minor ones, (3) bloggers are more likely to criticize other responses to the story (whether from the media or from others), (4) bloggers are more likely to use the story as a launching off point for a discussion about other matters, such as blogging practices and the difference between blogs and the media, and (5) bloggers are more likely to react to reader comments, either to respond to them or to post something that the comment highlights as interesting. This is what happened here. I posted the original story this morning, chiefly because I saw some academic friends of mine comment on it on a discussion list that I'm on. That was post 1. I then decided to do a bit more searching, to see how other media outlets were covering this; a news.google.com search for Bernice Young pointed me to the Media Matters post, which struck me as having a laughably over-the-top headline. A newspaper reporter likely wouldn't have written another story just about that, but I thought it was amusing and worth noting. I then saw that the substantive defense in the Media Matter post item was quite weak as well, so I included that in the post. That was post 2. The news.google.com query also showed me that there was a follow-up factual story in the news about the principal's response; a commenter to the original post also quoted from it, so that led me to conclude that this was a useful factual update. That was post 3. And the comments to post 3 led me to step back and remark on the difference between multiple blog posts and multiple articles in the newspaper, hence this post 4. Now this is surely not one of the great stories of our time -- not even close. But my point is that the presence of multiple blog posts, unlike the presence of multiple articles in the same newspaper, need not be closely related to the importance of the story. References 1. http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1253897939.shtml ___ Volokh mailing list Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
[Volokh] Jonathan Adler: Revising Web-based Newspaper Articles Without Informing Readers:
Posted by Jonathan Adler: Revising Web-based Newspaper Articles Without Informing Readers: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253910968 On Wednesday, I wrote a [1]brief post on ACORN's lawsuit against those who made and distributed the now-infamous undercover videotapes of ACORN staff. In the post, I linked to a [2]Washington Post story on the suit. Today, however, I learned that the story at that link is no longer the same as when I made my initial Wednesday post. As noted in an [3]early comment on my post, the original story included the following: In an exclusive interview with the Post, founder Wade Rathke said conservative claims that ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is a criminal enterprise that misuses federal and donor funds for political ends -- a claim contained in a report by House Republicans -- are a complete fabrication. He said exaggeration and conjecture about the group are being passed off daily on cable television and web-site blogs as documented fact. It's balderdash on top of poppycock, said Rathke, who was forced out last year amid an embezzlement scandal involving his brother. Portions from this passage no longer appear in the story as it now appears on the Post website. Now the relevant portion of the story simply reads: Meanwhile, the departed founder of ACORN said many of the accusations about the group are distortions meant to undermine President Obama and other Democrats. In an interview, Rathke said conservative claims that ACORN is a criminal enterprise that misuses federal and donor funds for political ends -- an allegation contained in a report by House Republicans -- are a complete fabrication. He said exaggeration and conjecture about the group are being passed off daily on cable television and blogs as documented fact. Missing are the reference to the embezzlement scandal or the colorful quote. Gone as well is the mention of an exclusive interview. Yet there is no acknowledgment anywhere in the story that it was edited. So, the Washington Post published a story on its website, revised the story to omit details that appeared in the relevant piece, and yet did not disclose these facts to the Post's online readers. Isn't this a problem? There may well have been valid reasons for revising the story. Perhaps an editor thought the story got relevant facts wrong or concluded reference to the embezzlement scandal was unfair. Whatever the reason for the change, the Post should have disclosed that changes were made and that it had decided to excise information included in the original story. This is not the first time I've noticed the web site of a prominent news organization failing to disclose that it had edited the web-based version of a story after initial publication. The NYT, for example, did it when reporting on the Administration's decision to abandon a planned missile defense of Poland and the Czech Republic, as I noted in an update to [4]this post. Is this now common practice? If so, it seems to be a major failing. Responsible bloggers routinely disclose anything more than the most minor stylistic and typographical revisions to published posts. I would think newspaper websites could do the same. Indeed, shouldn't newspapers at least match the disclosure norms observed by bloggers? After all, they're the real journalists. References 1. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253748981 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/23/AR2009092302285.html 3. http://volokh.com/posts/1253748981.shtml#653167 4. http://volokh.com/posts/1253193006.shtml ___ Volokh mailing list Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
[Volokh] Jonathan Adler: CRS Report on Honduras Coup:
Posted by Jonathan Adler: CRS Report on Honduras Coup: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253911496 Thanks to a helpful reader, I've now located a copy of the CRS report on recent events in Honduras I mentioned [1]here. The report, which was actually prepared by a different part of the Library of Congress and not CRS, the [2]Law Library of Congress, the division of the Library of Congress responsible for reports on foreign law, is [3]available here. References 1. http://volokh.com/posts/1253711014.shtml 2. http://www.loc.gov/law/about/ 3. http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/2009-002965HNRPT.pdf ___ Volokh mailing list Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
[Volokh] Orin Kerr: Government Files Notice of Appeal in Lori Drew Case:
Posted by Orin Kerr: Government Files Notice of Appeal in Lori Drew Case: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253922361 Today Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Krause, the prosecutor in the Lori Drew case, [1]filed a notice of appeal of the [2]District Court's decision granting the motion to dismiss. It's important to note that this does not mean the case will actually be appealed. The [3]Solicitor General must approve the decision to appeal for it to go forward, and this may simply be a protective notice in light of the fact that the government has 30 days to file a notice of appeal under the federal rules. It is also worth noting that just ten days ago, the Ninth Circuit rejected the line of cases that the government relied on in the Lori Drew prosecution in a civil case, [4]LVRC Holdings v. Brekka. This is particularly interesting because in Drew, Judge Wu accepted the government's broad reading of the statute as a matter of statutory interpretation; he only dismissed the case because of the constitutional vagueness problem. Under Brekka, however, the Ninth Circuit seems to have rejected the Government's very broad reading of the statute as a matter of statutory interpretation. In any event, if the Government does in fact appeal the Drew case, I plan to work on the appeal. References 1. file://localhost/files/DrewNoticeofAppeal.pdf 2. http://volokh.com/files/LoriDrew.pdf 3. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_3742000-.html 4. http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/09/15/07-17116.pdf ___ Volokh mailing list Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
[Volokh] Eugene Volokh: Switching Blogging Platforms and Hosting Providers:
Posted by Eugene Volokh: Switching Blogging Platforms and Hosting Providers: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_09_20-2009_09_26.shtml#1253937084 The site might be down much of the weekend. By Monday, we should be on [1]WordPress, hosted by [2]Hosting Matters, with design by [3]Sekimori. References 1. http://wordpress.com/ 2. http://hostingmatters.com/ 3. http://sekimori.com/ ___ Volokh mailing list Volokh@lists.powerblogs.com http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
