Blog

In the early days of this blog, I endeavored to liveblog several law review articles. The goal, in part, was to solicit real-time feedback. The experiments were helpful, though fittingly enough, I haven’t finished any of them. A few of them I will hopefully return to in the next year. But the idea is good.

Best-selling author, Walter Isaacon has taken this experiment to a new level.

One of the most successful authors in the world, Walter Isaacson, is seeking the wisdom of the crowds for his new book about the technology industry’s major inventors.

Using Medium.com, he has uploaded chapters of his new book, and has asked for feedback. The results have been interesting so far.

Though only two chapters are online, it’s already gotten attention from an impressive group. Stanford Professor of Political Theory Rob Reich thought the role of government in funding the early Internet got short shrift, and recommended Isaacson give it some attention. Isaacson responded in kind, “Yes, I will add a section on govt research at MIT, Stanford, Lincoln Lab, BBN, SRI, etc. Very important. I’m a fan of Leslie Berlin and her Noyce bio is superb.”

In a spicier example, Stewart Brand, an early pioneer of online forums, disputed Isaacson’s retelling of his own history. The two had a lively exchange, with both agreeing to moderate their understanding of the events.

I’ve considered using a similar approach to soliciting feedback for articles. In the context of a 20,000 word law review article, it is not very practicable to paste something, without footnotes into Medium. Google Docs could work better. Though, I’ve found it is hard enough to get colleagues to actually read something, and get good feedback on it. I’m not confident of the feedback the internet would give. But maybe I’m wrong. I’ll try to figure a good way of doing this.

I lived in New York City my first 18 years of life, but never once went to Times Square for New Years. 2014 will be different. This year, AALS will be in Manhattan, starting on January 2. One of the hotels with discount rates for AALS was the Marriott Marquis, which is right in Time Square. Somehow, AALS managed to block off rooms during New Years Eve for a ridiculously low rate. Somehow (I have no idea how), I was able to reserve a room at the Marquis on New Years Eve for $220 a night. When I saw that room was available, I jumped on it. I couldn’t even find the regular rate for the Marquis. Other hotels in the area were well over a thousand per night.

Anyway, I’ll be staying in Times Square on New Years Eve. And I get to see Justice Sotomayor drop the ball!

The AP offers some key questions to consider regarding the efficacy of the law.

The new year brings the big test of President Barack Obama’s beleaguered health care law: Will it work?

The heart of the law springs to life Wednesday, after nearly four years of political turmoil and three months of enrollment chaos. Patients will begin showing up at hospitals and pharmacies with insurance coverage bought through the nation’s new health care marketplaces.

The course of 2014 will show whether Obama can get affordable care to millions of people in need, without doing intolerable damage to the 85 percent of U.S. residents who already were insured.

Lots of Americans are nervous.

Will their new coverage be accepted? It’s a concern because insurers have reported problems with the customer information they’ve gotten from the government, including missing data and duplication.

How many more people will see old individual plans that they liked canceled? Will a flood of newly insured patients cause doctor shortages? Will businesses respond to the law by ditching their group plans or pushing more health costs onto workers?

No, the law is not entrenched. Even if people have it, it has to work.

A federal district court enjoined the application of the HHS contraceptive mandate to the Houston Baptist University yesterday. I spoke to a reporter about the case from the Chronicle. Here are my comments:

The Obama administration exempted churches from the mandate, but not affiliated organizations like religious schools and hospitals.

Josh Blackman, an assistant professor at South Texas College of Law, wasn’t surprised that Rosenthal’s decision came down in favor of HBU and East Texas Baptist University in Marshall.

“The issue is, these are Christian universities and their faith is very integral to their mission,” Blackman said.

The legal scholar said he is certain the Obama administration will appeal Rosenthal’s decision but doubts an appellate court would overturn the injunction against enforcing the mandate.

“They’ll just maintain the status quo,” he said.

In early 2014, the Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in a similar case involving the Hobby Lobby craft store chain, whose owners contend that forcing them to provide contraceptive services violates their religious beliefs, as well.

A decision in that case could settle the matter altogether, experts said.

“If Hobby Lobby wins and they win everything, then it becomes easier for a church or a religious hospital to make this argument,” Blackman said.

The very useful Texpatriate blog as the report:

KPRC reports that a local couple has sued the City of Houston after their full spousal benefits have been revoked. As the astute may recall, last month Mayor Parker announced that all legally married couples (includes those of the same-sex) could provide full spousal benefits from the City if one member of the couple worked for the municipality. Only three couples initially signed up for these benefits, including Noel Freeman (a City employee) and Brad Pritchett. Many will probably remember Freeman, the President of the Houston GLBT Caucus and previous candidate for the City Council, and Pritchett, an official with the Harris County Democratic Party. Shortly thereafter, officials with the Harris County GOP sued the City of Houston in attempt to enjoin the offering of these benefits; they were successful in obtaining a temporary restraining order to this effect until mid-January.

Accordingly, even though Freeman and others had begun paying the City higher premiums to ensure their lawfully wedded spouses had received the benefits, these benefits had been stopped indefinitely. In response to this injustice, the couple (as well as two others) has sued the City of Houston in Federal Court over being deprived of the equal protection and due process. As the Channel 2 article notes, the original suit that prompted the TRO will come up for full oral arguments in January.

I would imagine the federal court will have to abstain here, as the state court is sorting out the constitutionality of this statute. Stay tuned.