It seems the FAA has given its blessing to the iPad as a substitute for paper maps (see my earlier coverage here). If this device is deemed safe for pilots, then perhaps passengers can use it now during takeoff and landing? Surely if its safe enough for the pilots to use, us plebeian passengers, forced to enter a veritable stone age for those brief moments during landing, and takeoff, can use it as well?
I love Groupon, and Living Social, and all of the other daily deals web site. Now, I very seldom go anywhere unless I have a groupon. The deals are simply great. I would usually print out the groupons, and at the end of my my meal (or whatever the service is) hand it to the proprietor. Last night, I didn’t get a chance to print out the groupon, so I whipped out my droid, pulled up the Groupon App, opened up the groupon, and revealed the Groupon code to the waitress. The waitress, who lucked nice enough, looked at it, said thank you, and told me “You will need to part with your phone” while she scanned the info. I thought to myself, did she honestly want me to hand over my phone, while she takes it to wherever it is she is taking it, for however long she needs it, to scan the info. I couldn’t even estimate how much valuable information is on my phone, information I would rather not share. I almost asked if I could escort her while she has custody of my phone, but I thought better of that. During the 2 minutes I was without my phone, and I knew someone else had access to it, I was not a happy camper. I got it back, and as best as I can tell, she did nothing but scan the groupon. Needless to say, I will never use the Groupon app again. I will always print out the groupon.
Google’s new NFC technology, Google Wallet works well at a convenience story type checkout, or maybe at a vending machine, but what about at a restaurant? Unless the server can bring a NFC scanner to the table, you have to forfeit your phone for some indeterminate period of time. Handing over my credit card just doesn’t raise the same types of issues. Any concerns about NFC are nil compared to handing over your lifeline (literally) to someone you don’t know or trust. What if they steal a password? Plan spyware on the phone? Read my personal messages?Hacking is so much easier when you have a phone in front of you, and any screen lock passwords are disabled.
Something to think about.
That’s it? I’m not sure what the advances were (Sotomayor received $1.2 million for her bio, Thomas over a million for his). But $60,000? That just seems awfully low for such high profile authors. The contracts must be front-loaded to pay everything in advance. I’m also curious what percentage Scalia kept, and what percentage Garner kept. 50/50?
Perhaps one of the best reasons to check my blog regularly is my speed. More often than not, you will hear about a story here before you hear about it anywhere else. My instant analyses of Supreme Court opinions, as well as oral arguments, are usually posted within minutes of when the document is released, and I update them as I read through them. I’m usually hours ahead of SCOTUSBlog.
Also, I frequently cover stories featured on prominent blogs first. In the past 24 hours, I wrote four blog posts that were later featured on Volokh.
Yesterday at 8:32 p.m., I linked to a story in Business Week about GMU economist Tyler Cowen. Today at 12:46 p.m. Jon Adler linked to the same story.
Yesterday at 9:39 p.m., I linked to a story about the Columbia Prof who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of incest, and commented that this case won’t allow a challenge under Lawrence. Today at 2:19 p.m. Eugene Volokh blogged about the same story, and made a similar point about Lawrence.
Today at 12:06 a.m. I blogged about the constitutionality of the President using an autopen to sign a bill, citing the relevant OLC opinion. This morning at 9.47 a.m. Eugene Volokh wrote about the same topic (also coverage in the ABA Journal).
Today at 12:37 p.m., I blogged about the EDVA case finding that campaign contribution limits as applied to corporations were unconstitutional. At 2:07 p.m., Eugene Volokh blogged about the case, though his analysis was much more thorough and insightful.
As if you really needed any other reasons to read this blog. Seriously.
That is the holding of Judge Cacheris in EDVA, finding that FECA limits on corporations are unconstitutional. The Court extended Citizen United’s logic to reach this result. Here is the key paragraph:
The Supreme Court seized on the latter point in Citizens United, combining it with Buckley to strike down a banon independent corporate expenditures. The Supreme Court’slogic was that because Buckley found that independentcontributions by human beings do not corrupt, and becauseBellotti held that “the First Amendment does not allow politicalspeech restrictions based on a speaker’s corporate identity,”130 S. Ct. at 903, corporations cannot be banned from making thesame independent expenditures as individuals. 130 S. Ct. at899-903.
That logic is inescapable here. If human beings canmake direct campaign contributions within FECA’s limits without risking quid pro quo corruption or its appearance, and if, inCitizens United’s interpretation of Bellotti, corporations andhuman beings are entitled to equal political speech rights, then corporations must also be able to contribute within FECA’slimits.
A little ipso facto for my taste.
The Court decided not to duck the issue by relying on the constitutional avoidance cannon:
This Court recognizes that it must strive to avoid rendering constitutional rulings except where absolutely necessary. Ashwander v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 297 U.S. 288, 347(1936). But for better or worse, Citizens United held that there is no distinction between an individual and a corporation with respect to political speech. Thus, if an individual can make direct contributions within FECA’s limits, a corporation cannot be banned from doing the same thing. So because individuals can directly contribute to federal election campaigns within FECA’s limits, and because § 441b(a) does not allow corporations to do the same, § 441b(a) is unconstitutionaland Count Four must be dismissed.14
14 Importantly, this finding hardly gives corporations a blank check (so tospeak) to directly contribute unlimited amounts to federal campaigns.Rather, corporations are subject to the same FECA contribution limits asindividuals. See 2 U.S.C. § 441a(a) (listing limits on contributions from a“person”); 2 U.S.C. § 431(11) (“When used in this Act . . . [t]he term‘person’ includes an individual, partnership, committee, association,corporation, labor organization, or any other organization or group ofpersons.” (emphasis added)).
This quote is going to absolutely infuriate opponents of Citizens United who have argued that the Constitution treats corporations and individuals equally. And by infuriate, I mean they will issue dire press releases in order to gin up fear and raise funds. So they won’t really be infuriated, but will posture as angry, as this helps their mission.
Rick Hasen notes that this opinion will likely not stand:
I would expect this decision not to stand, or at least to be reconsidered by the judge. The United States Supreme Court in FEC v. Beaumont upheld a ban on corporate contributions in the case of FEC v. Beaumont, and the lower courts that have considered this question have all held that Citizens United did not overrule Beaumont on this question. The most recent case so holding is the Eighth Circuit’s opinion inMCCL v. Swanson, which I noted on the blog on May 16