Search for: "Eugene Volokh - Guest"
Results 361 - 380
of 487
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Jun 2012, 12:50 pm
Guests: Brian Schweitzer: State of Montana, @brianschweitzer Rick Hasen: University of California, Irvine, @rickhasen Dave Levinthal: Politico, @davelevinthal Eugene Volokh: University of California, Los Angeles, @VolokhC Links: Schweitzer on ‘mining for influence in Montana’ (NY Times) Buckley v. [read post]
24 May 2012, 8:58 am
Eugene Kontorovich, guest-blogging) The Fourth Circuit’s noteworthy decision in U.S. v. [read post]
20 May 2012, 4:46 pm
(Eugene Volokh) An interesting recent sex crime case, In re Tiemann (Mich. [read post]
2 May 2012, 12:26 pm
(Eugene Volokh) The Wilmington News-Journal reports on a controversy at the University of Delaware involving what may or may not be an attack motivated by sexual orientation: A University of Delaware student charged with a hate crime [and battery] after allegedly shoving a gay student to the floor at a house party in Newark earlier this month insists that he has been “falsely accused. [read post]
10 Apr 2012, 5:34 am
(Eugene Volokh) Today is the tenth anniversary of the Volokh Conspiracy, which was founded on April 10, 2002 as the Volokh Brothers blog. [read post]
6 Apr 2012, 9:34 am
Eugene kindly invited me back for a follow-up in light of recent events that underscore the importance of judicial engagement. [read post]
6 Apr 2012, 8:45 am
Eugene Kontorovich, guest-blogging) In discussions of Kiobel v. [read post]
6 Apr 2012, 8:19 am
Eugene Kontorovich, guest-blogging) In my previous post, I argued that the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause advocated by the government would have the absurd result, when applied to the parallel foreign commerce clause, of allowing Congress to impose mandates on foreigners with no prior contacts with the U.S. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 12:09 pm
Eugene Kontorovich, guest-blogging) One aspect of the ACA litigation that has not received due attention is the effect of the Court’s ruling on the scope Foreign Commerce Clause. [read post]
29 Mar 2012, 3:20 pm
Eugene Kontorovich, guest-blogging) Now that Eugene has given me the electronic keys to this Conspiracy, I could not resist getting involved in the now-legendary discussion of the ACA… There is a serious inconsistency between the government’s arguments for the mandate and for the Medicaid expansion. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 4:56 pm
(Eugene Volokh) I’m delighted to report that my colleague Rick Sander will be guest-blogging in the coming days, starting tomorrow, about recent developments related to race-based affirmative action. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 8:38 am
Eugene Kontorovich, guest-blogging) One of the peculiarities of the Alien Tort Statute is its mix of cosmopolitan conceptions of justice with American exceptionalism. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 6:00 am
Eugene Kontorovich, guest-blogging) Lets take a break from the ACA to think about the federal government’s power to to deal with matters that have no connection to the U.S., an issue the Court will take up when it hears the expanded arguments in Kiobel, the ATS case. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 6:32 am
Eugene Kontorovich, guest-blogging) [Cross-posted on OpinioJuris] The new issue in Kiobel is not mere extraterritoriality, but rather universality. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 5:35 am
Eugene Kontorovich, guest-blogging) Today the Supreme Court takes on the scope of the Commerce Clause in the historic healthcare cases. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 5:33 am
(Eugene Volokh) I’m delighted to report that Prof. [read post]
13 Mar 2012, 11:54 am
(Eugene Volokh) In Apolinar v. [read post]
12 Mar 2012, 7:46 am
(Stephanos Bibas (University of Pennsylvania), guest-blogging) I’d like to thank Eugene and his fellow co-conspirators for graciously letting me guest-blog this week about my new book, The Machinery of Criminal Justice, which was just published by Oxford University press and is available here. [read post]
11 Mar 2012, 11:08 pm
(Eugene Volokh) I’m delighted to report that Prof. [read post]
3 Mar 2012, 10:51 am
(Eugene Volokh) That seems to be the implication of United States v. [read post]
