Search for: "Howard Wasserman"
Results 441 - 460
of 595
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jan 2011, 6:19 am
Nicastro drew the attention of at least one commentator, Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg. [read post]
22 Jul 2023, 4:45 am
” Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean declared the identical position: “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. [read post]
21 Jun 2016, 6:04 am
Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg, echoing Justice Ginsburg’s dissent, argues that “[i]t makes no sense for a statute's private right of action not to be coextensive with the substantive law being applied”: Ginsburg is correct that there should be a link, not separation, between prohibited activities and authorized remedies. [read post]
6 Jan 2016, 3:46 pm
See also Howard Wasserman for more. [read post]
5 Feb 2010, 7:59 am
The Federalist Society website also has an ongoing debate for scholars on the decision, with the latest commentary by law professors Larry Ribstein and Howard Wasserman. [read post]
7 Dec 2017, 4:23 am
” Additional commentary on Masterpiece Cakeshop comes from Jeff Milchen at The American Independent Business Alliance; Walter Olson in an op-ed for the New York Daily News; law student Justin Burnam at The Least Dangerous Blog; Mark Joseph Stern at Slate; David Boyle at Casetext; Jeffrey Toobin at The New Yorker’s Daily Comment blog; Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg; Douglas Laycock and Thomas Berg at Vox; the same authors in an op-ed for the New York Daily News, where… [read post]
27 May 2015, 2:12 am
At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman discusses possible reasons why the Court has not yet issued its opinion in the Facebook threats case Elonis v. [read post]
11 Mar 2015, 4:42 am
Some lawprofs, like Eugene Volokh, Scott Lemieux and Howard Wasserman, have taken the position that, vile as this may be, it’s exactly what the First Amendment protects. [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 7:53 am
At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman analyzes the new lawsuit in the context of the Court's decision last Term in Ashcroft v. [read post]
28 May 2014, 4:19 am
Lyle Denniston covered the decision for this blog; commentary on the decision comes from Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg, who contends that, although the unanimous opinion by Justice Ginsburg “[s]ounds simple enough, . . . inside the opinion is a lot of really bad stuff”; from Ruthann Robson at the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, who argues that the decision is “important” because “[i]t further narrows the space for claiming First Amendment… [read post]
11 Jun 2013, 5:35 am
At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman reports on Monday’s order denying review in Scott v. [read post]
12 Jan 2012, 6:45 am
” Also at PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman looks at two cases that “together suggest a ‘retail’ approach to constitutional rights and civil enforcement of constitutional rights. [read post]
5 Nov 2019, 3:59 am
This blog’s preview came from Howard Wasserman. [read post]
22 Jan 2015, 5:00 am
Howard Wasserman covered the ruling for this blog, with other coverage from Taylor Gillan of JURIST. [read post]
9 Jan 2017, 3:53 am
At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman looks ahead to the next chapter in the Supreme Court vacancy saga, observing that “when the system breaks down is when strange compromises–that leave no one satisfied–can find a footing. [read post]
13 Jan 2015, 2:54 am
” Also at PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman considers whether Congress could or should change how the Chief Justice is selected. [read post]
26 Apr 2018, 4:29 am
” At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman wonders “whether the lack of interest in the scope of the injunction hints at where the Court will come down on the merits. [read post]
24 Apr 2015, 3:42 am
Coverage comes from Howard Wasserman for this blog and from Tony Mauro for the Supreme Court Brief (subscription required), with commentary from Carl Smith at Procedurally Taxing. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 10:32 am
Howard Wasserman notes that: The problem is an (anecdotal) strong resistance in the legal market to do so. [read post]
7 May 2014, 5:22 am
At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman weighs in on the decision, arguing that it “seems extraordinarily unlikely that a plaintiff will even be able to even sufficiently plead” that a pattern of prayers rises to the level of violating the Constitution, while at his eponymous blog Ed Mannino breaks down the opinion and suggests that “a single change in the court might occasion a swift overruling or severe limitation on the broad discretion conferred by the… [read post]
