Search for: "Howard Wasserman"
Results 361 - 380
of 549
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
23 Jan 2017, 4:12 am
At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman discusses last week’s oral argument in Ziglar v. [read post]
14 Dec 2007, 8:34 am
[UPDATE: Views offered by several commenters below, including Howard Wasserman and Michael Risch, persuade me that this could be hearsay. [read post]
6 May 2014, 5:11 am
Luke Rioux discusses the decision in detail at Harmless Error, while Howard Wasserman weighs in at PrawfsBlawg. [read post]
12 May 2014, 4:40 am
’” In another post at PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman responds to Garnett’s post, acknowledging that “[i]t is an open question when, exactly, an establishment occurs (which is Rick’s point),” but adding that “it is not as simple as Kennedy suggests in saying ‘you can always express your own views’–the government’s involvement changes the metric. [read post]
17 Feb 2016, 11:04 am
Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg criticizes her proposal (again, tongue in cheek). [read post]
3 Feb 2015, 3:36 am
And at PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman predicts that “Kagan being ‘conflicted’ about this will not move the needle at all, [because] . . . the collegiality norms on the Court mean that, as long as one Justice remains strongly opposed to cameras, the rest of the Justices are never going to push the issue. [read post]
30 Apr 2015, 3:06 am
Commentary comes from Linda Greenhouse of The New York Times, NPR’s To the Point (audio), Steven Mazie in an explainer for The Economist, Amy Davidson at The New Yorker, Noah Feldman at Bloomberg View, Erwin Chemerinsky at ACSblog, Janson Wu at ACSblog, Suzanne Goldberg at ACSblog, Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker, David Fontana and Donald Braman in The Washington Post, Judith Schaeffer in USA Today, Gene Schaerr at The Daily Signal (who had another post there earlier this week), Ryan… [read post]
17 Jul 2019, 4:04 am
” At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman wonders which opinions will define Stevens’ legacy. [read post]
20 Jun 2014, 4:58 am
” At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman discusses standing and a question left open by Monday’s decision in Susan B. [read post]
22 Nov 2010, 8:01 am
At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman expresses doubt that the statute will pass constitutional muster, but in a second post he offers a reluctant defense of the revised statute. [read post]
22 Jan 2019, 3:50 am
” At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman suggests that last week’s oral argument in Home Depot U.S.A. [read post]
9 Mar 2008, 7:47 am
Howard Dean on to discuss it. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 7:00 am
Howard Wasserman of PrawfsBlawg notes those posts and others. [read post]
19 Apr 2019, 3:46 am
Howard Wasserman has this blog’s analysis of Wednesday’s oral argument in McDonough v. [read post]
22 Jul 2012, 5:34 pm
I'm sure Steve Clowney, Tom Russell, Howard Wasserman, and a bunch of other law profs are going to be analyzing this for a while. [read post]
12 Oct 2008, 7:26 am
One doesn't become an accomplice to a crime because some nutjob in the audience, boiling over with rage and righteous indignation, decides to make a left turn toward harming the other candidate instead of a right turn into the voting booth.At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman confronts the ugly lawyer tendency to frame issues in terms of law, distinguishing ugly rhetoric from criminal conduct. [read post]
4 Mar 2010, 7:20 am
Muchnick, Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg praises the opinion for getting a jurisdictional issue “just right and in a straight-forward way, with a minimum of complications or confusion. [read post]
26 Jan 2016, 6:10 am
At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman discusses the Court’s summary opinion in James v. [read post]
18 Jun 2018, 9:45 pm
” Howard Wasserman suggests that, because the Court hears so few cases, it should do a better job of selecting cases that provide a vehicle for rulemaking to guide the lower Courts. [read post]
9 Mar 2016, 4:22 am
Commentary comes from Howard Wasserman, who discusses the timing for a successor at PrawfsBlawg; from Kent Scheidegger, who criticizes the record of Judge Jane Kelly in capital cases at Crime and Consequences; and in an op-ed for USA Today, where Eric Wang argues that, although we “may not know for sure exactly what Scalia would have thought about the merits of the arguments now being made about who should appoint his successor,” “we do know what he would have… [read post]
