Search for: "Howard Wasserman"
Results 481 - 500
of 599
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Sep 2015, 6:00 am
Lyle Denniston covered the latest developments for this blog, with other commentary coming from Howard Wasserman in two posts at PrawfsBlawg, Steven Mazie for The Economist, and Robin Wilson at the Illinois Law Faculty Blog. [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]
27 Oct 2016, 4:43 am
” Commentary comes from Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg, who remarks that although comments like Cruz’s may be “all posturing, in light of recent polls,” they do “hint that a lame-duck confirmation of Merrick Garland is not in the offing. [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]
4 Jun 2019, 3:51 am
” Additional commentary comes from Hera Arsen at Ogletree Deakins and from Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg. [read post]
12 Jun 2015, 6:51 am
” At PrawfsBlawg, Howard Wasserman discusses the Chief Justice’s frequent practice of assigning First Amendment opinions to himself. [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]
4 Sep 2012, 12:14 pm
Kenneth Jost of Jost on Justice criticizes the book as “flawed,” while – commenting on a critical review of the book by Judge Richard Posner – Howard Wasserman of PrawfsBlawg notes that Justice Scalia may have avoided Judge Posner’s criticism by citing in his book to his “votes [that] have been ideologically unexpected while also arguably adhering to some form of originalism–the Confrontation Clause cases of the last decade, beginning with… [read post]
17 Jan 2018, 3:46 am
Howard Wasserman analyzes the argument for this blog. [read post]
29 Nov 2018, 4:08 am
” Briefly: Howard Wasserman has this blog’s analysis of Tuesday’s argument in Nutraceutical Corp. 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]
2 May 2022, 10:24 am
Howard Wasserman writes at Prawfs: A different issue--and possible future bomb--involves whether government has speech rights. [read post]
27 Feb 2019, 3:57 am
Howard Wasserman analyzes the opinion for this blog. [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]
17 Mar 2010, 6:02 am
Howard Wasserman agrees at Prawfsblawg. [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]
16 Jul 2010, 8:12 am
Howard Wasserman argues at PrawfsBlawg that the Supreme Court’s decision in Iqbal, despite its flaws, does not impose substantially heightened pleading requirements on civil rights cases. [read post]
29 May 2019, 7:15 am
Howard Wasserman has this blog’s opinion analysis. [read post]
28 Jun 2013, 8:08 am
Commentary and analysis come from Howard Wasserman at PrawfsBlawg (here and here), Kevin Snider at JURIST, and Fred Woocher at the Election Law Blog, who discusses what the voting alignment suggests about the Justices’ views of the merits of the case. [read post]
25 Jul 2017, 4:28 am
Howard Wasserman challenges the assumptive reasons offered by the op-ed, and as noted in the comments by other law profs, the extent to which even the assumptive reasons apply varies greatly from school to school, professor to professor. [read post]
