Search for: "Howard Wasserman"
Results 481 - 500
of 547
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
29 Apr 2022, 5:01 am
In the immediate aftermath of the decision, Howard Wasserman argued that the Court's position was the best approach in light of the Court's efforts to tighten the definition of jurisdiction in recent years. [read post]
19 Jun 2015, 5:12 am
” Howard Wasserman analyzes both Reed and Walker at PrawfsBlawg. [read post]
28 Apr 2012, 2:53 am
At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman recognizes the validity of Goldberg's point (with the caveat that it's nothing new, which of course is true but fails to address the fact that it's not getting any better, and appears to be getting worse). [read post]
11 Oct 2017, 4:09 am
Howard Wasserman has this blog’s argument analysis. [read post]
30 Jun 2014, 3:11 am
At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman discusses the Court and alleged inconsistencies in its First Amendment jurisprudence in the context of “speech-protective” decisions like McCullen. [read post]
29 Jun 2015, 4:43 am
Still more commentary comes from Kenneth Jost at Jost on Justice; from Adam Winkler at the Huffington Post; at PrawfsBlawg, where posts come from Richard Re, Howard Wasserman (who has four posts on the decision and how it is being implemented), Paul Horwitz, Rick Hills, and Hadar Aviram; from Karl Laird at the Oxford Human Rights Hub; at the Human Rights at Home Blog from Noah Novogrodsky; and from John Culhane for POLITICO. [read post]
24 Apr 2018, 4:27 am
” Additional commentary on the case comes from Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg and the editorial board of The New York Times. [read post]
28 Feb 2017, 3:43 am
Other comments on the argument in Hernández come in two posts at Prawsfblawg from Howard Wasserman, here and here. [read post]
3 Jun 2014, 6:05 am
United States, where a defendant was convicted of violating Sarbanes-Oxley’s ‘anti-shredding’ prohibition by throwing illegally caught fish off his boat”; Ruthann Robson at Constitutional Law Prof Blog, who summarizes the case as one in which, “[i]n a nutshell, the Court concludes that the federal prosecutors exceeded the power the statute gave them . . . and thus there is no need to decide whether Congress exceeded the power the Constitution’s treaty and… [read post]
15 Jun 2017, 4:31 am
At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman takes note of the lower court’s actions following the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this term in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. [read post]
21 May 2010, 7:19 am
” Howard Wasserman responds to Fontana’s article on PrawfsBlawg, saying “[t]he whole piece is worth a read” but that he is unconvinced by Fontana’s description of a lack of eligible liberals to serve as federal judges. [read post]
1 Jun 2007, 9:22 am
A sober legal analysis of the claims comes from Howard Wasserman at the Sports Law Blog (via TortsProf) and a snarky analysis from David Nieporent at Overlawyered;As we get ready for trial, we always wonder about juries and jury selection. [read post]
17 Jul 2012, 9:01 pm
(And thanks to Howard Wasserman for prompting me to talk a little bit about this.) [read post]
23 Jul 2018, 4:23 am
” At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman takes issue with liberal complaints about Republican court-packing. [read post]
7 Jun 2017, 4:26 am
Prawfsblawg features two discussions of the process by which opinion-writers are assigned at the Supreme Court and the justices’ use of the assignment power, from Howard Wasserman here and Ian Samuel here. [read post]
11 Jan 2017, 4:25 am
Howard Wasserman analyzes the argument for this blog. [read post]
15 Jun 2018, 4:30 am
” Additional commentary comes from the First Amendment Blog, Jennifer Tiedemann at the Goldwater Institute, Adav Noti at Take Care, Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg, and Richard Hasen at Slate, who concludes that “the opinion shows a more realistic and functional understanding of the political process than the court has shown in campaign finance cases. [read post]
14 Dec 2019, 3:58 am
That’s not really an accurate description nor a realistic concern, as Howard Wasserman explains. [read post]
10 Jul 2020, 4:11 am
Howard Wasserman comments on the scope of nationwide injunctions by analyzing a footnote in Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent, and James Phillips examines a footnote in Justice Elena Kagan’s concurrence and argues that it misreads the majority opinion Kagan joined in Our Lady of Guadalupe. [read post]
13 Jul 2020, 3:00 am
At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman ponders some process-oriented questions raised by Vance and Mazars and discusses potential implications for future cases. [read post]
