Blog

This fictitious round in our never-ending brawl comes from the pseudonymous “constitutional law professor” named Screwtape who is now blogging at Huffington Post Comedy. This satire (which I find quite weak) illustrates a simulated conversation between Justice Scalia and Satan, with convenient links to things Scalia actually said or did. Here is a bit with Posner:

The Devil: Nice, talk to me about voting.

Scalia: Things moving well. After we gutted the Voting Right Act, some of our friends down south, if you know what I mean, got going passing laws making it harder for, you know, certain people to vote. These laws require hard to get photo ID’s, and they closed the polls during convenient times, all the good stuff.

The Devil: Great, you know how much I hate universal suffrage. Makes me see red.

Scalia: I know, that’s why I threw in that line at the oral argument about voting rights being “racial entitlements.”

The Devil: That was a beautiful touch. You guys are going to keep upholding voter ID laws right. I saw that Judge Posner said he might have been wrong the first time around.

Scalia: Don’t worry about Posner. He may be much smarter than I am but I get to review his decisions.

For some reason, the last line has no links. Scalia actually said the bit about reviewing his decisions during an interview on Fox News Sunday.

SCALIA: He is a court of the appeals judge, isn’t he?
WALLACE: Yes.
SCALIA: He doesn’t sit in judgment of my opinions as far as I’m concerned.
WALLACE: You sit in judgment of his opinion?
SCALIA: That’s what happens.

And speaking of Fox News is effectively like appearing on HellTV 8 (The “Ocho“). Also, I’m sure the Devil would curse Scalia for all those pro-defendant decisions that keep people out of jail. But whatever, doesn’t fit the satire.

Relatedly, what’s with (presumably) tenured law professors writing (weak) satire under pseudonyms? We are blessed with one of the few professions in the world where we can (generally) speak our minds and are paid for it. There is nothing here that would get any law professor in trouble.

I will be giving a talk on Unprecedented at the Philadelphia Federalist Society Chapter on Monday, January 6 at 2014. The event will be the offices of Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP at One Logan Square, 130 North 18th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. Registration begins at 5, and the program begins at 5:30 p.m.  Registration information is here.

I hope to see you there. This talk will be updated with some of the recent developments in the contraceptive mandate cases. Also the book will be on sale at a discounted rate, and I will be autographing copies.

In property, we use the image of the bundle of sticks to explain to students that ownership of something is multi-faceted. The most essential stick is the right to exclude. But a really important (and often understated) stick  is the right to include. Deciding who you can let onto your land, and in what terms, is essential. Usually, a person who owns land in fee simple, can sell it to anyone he chooses, and relatedly can give less than a fee simple to someone else. For example, a leasehold.

But Winona, Minnesota passed an odd law that only allows rental properties to make up 30% of the homes on a given block. If homes on the block are rented before you, then you can’t rent your own land!

Minnesota Public Radio has the story:

The Minnesota Court of Appeals hears arguments today in a case involving the rights of Winona homeowners to rent out their properties.

The city’s rental law allows rental properties to make up only 30 percent of homes on any given block.

It’s a law that Ted and Lauren Dzierzbicki weren’t aware of when they bought a house in Winona in 2007. They planned to have their daughter Jenna live in part of the house while she was a student at Winona State University and rent the rest out to other students. They spent $40,000 to renovate the two-story house.

But when the Dzierzbickis applied for a rental license, the city said the house was ineligible for a permit. The block had already reached its 30 percent limit for rental certificates.

The Dzierzbickis and two other homeowners filed suit against the city in Winona County District Court.

Earlier this year, a district court judge said that law is constitutional. Now, the group of Winona homeowners is appealing that decision, arguing it’s not the city’s job to limit the number of homeowners who want to rent their properties.

Of course, the landmark zoning case, Village of Belle Terre v. Borrass began in a village that tried to ban college students from nearby Stony Brook University from living together. The plaintiffs are being represented by the Institute for Justice.

“Whether or not you’re able to rent out your property to somebody else should not depend on whether or not your neighbor has already rented their property out,” said Anthony Sanders, an attorney with the Institute for Justicerepresenting the Winona homeowners. “We think that we have a very good shot at overturning the district court’s decision to ignore the right of homeowners to rent out their homes and to protect property rights in Minnesota.”

Here is a video I took Thursday evening of the blizzard,  named Super Storm Hercules, in Times Square. I suspect this will impact AALS travel plans.

Super storm Hercules in Times Square pic.twitter.com/IQukgnbhK8

— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) January 3, 2014

Update: Apparently, the storm was named in honor of late LawProf Ronald Dworkin.

 

@JoshMBlackman apparently Dworkin got to name this storm

— greg (@Greg651) January 3, 2014

 

To recap, a state court judge granted a TRO in a case filed by the Harris County GOP. The City of Houston removed the case. And on Thursday, District Judge Lee Rosenthal declined to issue an injunction.

Brian Rogers has the story for the Chronicle.

Now the parties will have to argue whether the case should be returned to state court before the merits are touched.