Search for: "BARNETT v. BARNETT."
Results 981 - 1000
of 1,956
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Apr 2012, 4:02 pm
Last week’s oral argument in HHS v. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 3:38 pm
RANDY BARNETT: Before it was decided. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 1:58 pm
Many of the legal academics who ridiculed Randy Barnett’s work on the mandate, and who were relied upon by legal journalists and commentators, thought their schools were advancing viable legal claims in Rumsfeld v. [read post]
3 Apr 2012, 8:47 am
A bill that offered the choice between buying your own insurance or being enrolled in the government's health insurance plan would clearly be constitutional (probably even to Randy Barnett). [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 6:30 pm
Barnett, 980 S.W.2d 297, 308 (Mo. 1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1161, 119 S. [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 7:07 am
Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, my colleague Randy Barnett, who's representing the private plaintiffs in the ACA case, has written a post focusing upon Justice Kennedy's expressed concern that in order for the Court to uphold section 5000A of the ACA, it might have to issue what Randy calls an "unbounded" opinion, one that would permit Congress to require the purchase of virtually any product--an outcome that Justice Kennedy fears would “change the relationship of… [read post]
2 Apr 2012, 12:31 am
There are a number of resolved cases to report, including: Mr Phillip Scofield v Best, Clause 1, 30/03/2012; Mr Craig Whittaker MP v Halifax Evening Courier, Clause 1, 29/03/2012; A woman v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 28/03/2012; A man v Daily Mail, clause 1, 3, 5, 28/03/2012; Mr Nathan Roberts v Daily Mail, clause 1, 2, 28/03/2012; Mr Andrew Morgan v The Sun, clause 1, 28/03/2012; Mr Philip Bovey v The Independent, clause 12, 26/03/2012. [read post]
1 Apr 2012, 10:49 pm
Randy Barnett has acknowledged that when the mandate debate began, he thought it “a long shot” just to make it to the Supreme Court (much less to win). [read post]
1 Apr 2012, 6:37 pm
Sutton’s opinion, meanwhile, rested on a dubious distinction between as-applied and facial challenges that would have required the Supreme Court to overrule United States v. [read post]
30 Mar 2012, 10:12 am
The petitions of the day are: Morgan v. [read post]
30 Mar 2012, 8:53 am
Many of the legal academics who ridiculed Randy Barnett’s work on the mandate, and who were relied upon by legal journalists and commentators, thought their schools were advancing viable legal claims in Rumsfeld v. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 3:03 pm
By the following year, a district court judge had cited Barnett in his opinion striking down health care reform, and Barnett himself had left behind his March 2010 conclusion that the Supreme Court would need to risk its credibility in a politically charged case, Bush v. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 2:44 pm
By the following year, a district court judge had cited Barnett in his opinion striking down health care reform, and Barnett himself had left behind his March 2010 conclusion that the Supreme Court would need to risk its credibility in a politically charged case, Bush v. [read post]
28 Mar 2012, 4:53 am
Bank N.A. v. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 10:14 pm
Bush and Boumediene v. [read post]
27 Mar 2012, 5:19 am
(David Bernstein) The Times has a nice front-page profile of Randy Barnett, discussing his role in crafting the challenge to the ACA. [read post]
25 Mar 2012, 7:01 pm
This was before the Court decided Gonzales v. [read post]
24 Mar 2012, 9:25 am
(Randy Barnett) Lots has been said recently about how the “conservative” justices would have to abandon their previous decisions in order to invalidate the individual insurance mandate. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 11:20 am
Raich and United States v. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 2:30 pm
Earlier this month, Randy Barnett wrote a post at the Volokh Conspiracy in which he distinguished the challenge to the individual mandate from Gonzales v. [read post]
