Search for: "Randy Grounds"
Results 341 - 360
of 632
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Apr 2012, 11:08 am
(Randy Barnett) Einer replies to the two previous posts: The responses by Randy Barnett and Phillip Hamburger to my New Republic article contradict each other in an interesting way. [read post]
20 Apr 2012, 7:34 am
(Randy Barnett) I have been following the reaction to Judge Janice Rogers Brown and Chief Judge David Sentelle’s concurring opinion in Hettinga v. [read post]
19 Apr 2012, 1:48 pm
If Hunter demanded the money in return for her silence, then there might be grounds for blackmail charges. [read post]
11 Apr 2012, 12:47 pm
Professor Randy Barnett at Georgetown University Law Center is the architect of the argument that the power to impose the individual mandate does not fall within the Commerce Clause on the grounds that inactivity cannot be conside [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 8:13 am
” [Footnote: The exception was Randy E. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 8:47 am
Of course, to constitutional law scholars, this is a confused argument, because the law is being challenged on Commerce Clause grounds, not liberty interests. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 3:03 am
There is no question that repetitive stresses and occupational illnesses — whether respiratory, such as mesothelioma, or degenerative, such as spinal disc damage — are grounds for FELA lawsuits. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 2:29 pm
This appears unlikely as it is grounded in Georgia's 1798 constitution and earlier fair trial rights. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 3:00 am
My colleague Randy Barnett—co-counsel for the individual respondents—has helpfully published a recent post in which he elaborates upon some of the respondents’ arguments against the constitutionality of the insurance-maintenance provision of the ACA, section 5000A; so I thought I’d take this occasion to provide a few reactions to those arguments, and to more fully explain how the issues have been teed up to the Court. [read post]
14 Mar 2012, 7:48 pm
He cites several conservative and libertarian legal commentators who oppose federal tort reform on constitutional grounds, including myself and co-blogger Randy Barnett. [read post]
9 Mar 2012, 1:13 pm
(Randy Barnett) There has been a lot of chatter lately about how Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion in Raich somehow binds him to rule for the government in the challenge to the ACA. [read post]
5 Mar 2012, 9:52 am
Defenders and critics of judicially enforceable constitutional rights typically argue on grounds of political morality, contending that democratic legal systems should (or should not) adopt constitutional rights as a matter of policy. [read post]
3 Mar 2012, 9:38 am
I am not informed of the details on the ground in Virginia. [read post]
28 Feb 2012, 7:22 am
But striking down the individual mandate on the grounds proffered by Florida has zero practical effect on the power of the federal government, which, under Florida's (aka Randy Barnett's) theory, could impose practically the same mandate on private individuals to buy health insurance just so long as the mandate was conditioned on some commercial activity -- say, working at a job affecting interstate commerce. [read post]
19 Feb 2012, 6:47 am
Safety concerns like midair collisions and property damage on the ground are also an issue. [read post]
12 Feb 2012, 2:16 pm
Thus, it is a characteristically deontological position to maintain that unjust actions or institutions cannot be justified on the ground that they would produce good consequences. [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 10:06 am
Randy Smith dissented on the marriage issue, concluding that Proposition 8 had valid reasons behind it. [read post]
24 Jan 2012, 9:27 am
In a recent article, Professors Randy J. [read post]
20 Jan 2012, 7:02 am
At the Vancouver Sun, Randy Boswell reports on the Court’s denial of cert. in Bluman v. [read post]
20 Jan 2012, 5:10 am
(Randy Barnett) In his thoughtful post, Orin says he would support striking down the individual insurane mandate on federalism grounds if the Supreme Court provided a “genuinely principled or workable doctrine to justify” its decision. [read post]
