Jameson Jones will be arguing Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. on Tuesday. The oral argument lineup is here. Jameson graduated law school in 2007. Six years from JD to Supreme Court oral argument is extremely impressive. Good luck to him! Enjoy the quill, and hopefully a victory.
Howard Bashman asks important questions.
“SCOTUSblog on camera: J. Harvie Wilkinson, III — Part four.” “SCOTUSblog” has posted this video online today, part four of an eight-part interview. Presumably in part eight, if not sooner, the interview’s relevance to the subject of the U.S. Supreme Court will be revealed.
I really enjoyed the first few videos in the series with the Solicitor General (here and here), but I found that I did not have enough time to watch all of them. SCOTUSBlog would be well-served to transcribe the videos. That way we can engage, quote, and learn from them.
Update: Howard Bashman opines on Part V.
“SCOTUSblog on camera: J. Harvie Wilkinson, III — Part five.” “SCOTUSblog” has posted this video online today, part five of an eight-part interview. Tomorrow’s installment promises to feature Judge Wilkinson’s tips on turkey carving.
Update: Howard Bashman is on fire with Part VI.
“SCOTUSblog on camera: J. Harvie Wilkinson, III — Part six.” “SCOTUSblog” has posted this video online today, part six of an eight-part interview. Today’s installment features Judge Wilkinson’s tips on Thanksgiving leftovers and returning unwanted Hanukkah gifts.
Update: Howard chimes in on Part VII.
“SCOTUSblog on camera: J. Harvie Wilkinson, III — Part seven.” “SCOTUSblog” has posted this video online today, part seven of an eight-part interview. Tomorrow’s final installment, in addition to finally revealing the interview’s relevance to the U.S. Supreme Court, will also contain Judge Wilkinson’s explanation for why, despite having been born in New York City, his New York accent is now all but unnoticeable.
I chatted with Richard Wolf yesterday yesterday about the pending contraceptive petitions. I was quoted about the importance of the Conestoga petition, which was granted today. Here is my brief bit in USA Today:
While most Supreme Court experts had predicted the justices would grant the Hobby Lobby case, the court may have added Conestoga’s challenge because that company is owned directly by a family, rather than a trust.
“It’s a really significant case,” says Josh Blackman, an assistant law professor at South Texas College of Law and author of a recent book on the constitutional challenges to Obamacare.
These cases will be really, really though. And fascinating.
Katherin Mangu-Ward has a great profile of the rise and downfall of Intrade at Reason:
But just 20 days after Intrade’s electoral triumph, the federal government launched proceedings that would eventually shut the site down. On November 26, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) filed suit in a Washington, D.C., district court against the Ireland-based firm, alleging that Intrade had violated a ban on unregulated options trading.
“It is against the law to solicit U.S. persons to buy and sell commodity options, even if they are called ‘prediction’ contracts, unless they are listed for trading and traded on a CFTC-registered exchange or unless legally exempt,” David Meister, director of the commission’s enforcement division, wrote in a statement heavy on both legalese and sneer quotes. The statement specifically mentioned Intrade markets pertaining to the price of gold and currencies-turf that traditional commodities markets usually occupy.
While the government cited no evidence of harm, it claimed that the rules Intrade broke “enable the CFTC to police market activity and protect market integrity.” The CFTC said it would seek “civil monetary penalties, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, and permanent injunctions against further violations of federal commodities law.”
The following Monday, citing “legal and regulatory pressures,” Intrade announced that U.S. traders had little more than a month to empty their accounts. “We understand this announcement may come as a surprise and a disappointment, and we apologize for the short notice and haste required to deal with this.”
With the Americans out, Intrade quickly dwindled to a shadow of its former self. By March volume had fallen to a meager 50,000 trades for the year. On the 10th of that month, a somewhat cryptic message appeared on the site’s main page announcing that all trading had been shut down after the discovery of “financial irregularities” that ran afoul of Irish law.
And that was that. The Intrade experiment-and much of the promise of public prediction markets-had been squashed by overzealous regulators.
I have been in touch with counsel representing InTrade, and am preparing an amicus brief on their behalf with respect to First Amendment issues. Though, it seems that the litigation is currently stalled in discovery disputes (shocker) so nothing new for now.
President Obama has construed his Article II powers very broadly. In the context of drug law enforcement, immigration enforcement, and ACA enforcement, the President has seen fit to exempt huge chunks of the population from the law based on his notion of prosecutorial discretion. Yet, he is still deporting people at a very high rate (much to the consternation of immigrant rights advocates). Such a high rate, that he was heckled at an event in San Francisco by someone his team vetted, and put on the stage behind him.
This exchange is fascinating.
“Mr. Obama, my family has been separated for 19 months now!” yelled a young man who stood with others on the riser behind the president at the Betty Ann Ong Chinese Recreation Center.
Mr. Obama continued to speak, but the man did not let up. “You have a power to stop deportation for all undocumented immigrants in this country,” he said.
Let’s pause here. The President invoked his executive power to stop deportation for the Dreamers, even though Congress specifically rejected that proposal. (Is this Youngstown zone 3? As Jackson put it, when “the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb.”). But, the President is seeking congressional authorization here, where he has not done so in the past. He unilaterally waived a healthcare requirement for millions of Americans. But he will not stop deportation.
The President’s response is even more interesting.
The president turned to address him. “Actually, I don’t,” he said. “And that’s why we’re here.”
Here, the President identified a limit on his executive power. I don’t know what that limit is. But he can’t do this.
As the event’s organizers tried to remove the man, Mr. Obama signaled no. “I respect the passion of these young people because they feel deeply about the concerns for their families,” he said. But, he continued, the United States is a nation of laws, and “it is not simply a matter of us just saying we’re going to violate the law.”
Now there’s some chutzpah. I would like to see the OLC memo that justifies his delay of Obamacare in this “nation of laws.”