Search for: "Sandy Levinson" Results 281 - 300 of 528
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
26 Oct 2011, 12:25 pm by Lawrence Solum
Here is the abstract: The following essay pays tribute to Sandy Levinson's thoughts on constitutional compromises by paying tribute to the thoughts on constitutional compromises by our common mentor, Walter Murphy. [read post]
10 Oct 2011, 8:01 pm by pittlegalscholarship
Texas Law, Business, and Economics Dan Rodriguez (Texas Law) Touro Sandy V. [read post]
17 Sep 2011, 11:03 am by Keith Gerver
The afternoon session of Day 2 of the conference begins with introductory remarks from Gabby Blum, the moderator of the afternoon’s first panel. [read post]
1 Sep 2011, 9:50 am by JB
No, this is not a Rick roll Rick Perry apparently supports something like Paul Carrington's proposal-- joined by legal academics across the ideological spectrum, including Sandy Levinson and myself--for 18 year "term limits" for Supreme Court Justices. [read post]
26 Aug 2011, 6:08 am by Gerard N. Magliocca
If Sandy Levinson had been around then, he probably would have denounced the "egregious House of Representatives. [read post]
4 Aug 2011, 9:29 am by Bernadette Meyler
This question was posed for me by Dan Solove’s post on “Losing Our Religion,” as well as by the juxtaposition between Jack’s book and Sandy Levinson’s Our Undemocratic Constitution, works that share many sympathies yet appear to reach opposite conclusions. [read post]
3 Aug 2011, 11:43 am by Mark Graber
The most important constitutional question in 2011, as Sandy Levinson never tires of reminding us, is whether the Constitution of the United States (or many state constitutions) provides a means of staffing the government and making rules that enables government to do a decent job filling in potholes. [read post]
2 Aug 2011, 6:21 pm by Joey Fishkin
I think this is yet another area where Jack’s analogy (or really, Sandy Levinson’s analogy, which Jack credits generously) between constitutional faith and religious faith, between the Bible and the Constitution, is highly instructive. [read post]
31 Jul 2011, 7:42 pm by Tun-Jen Chiang
  Sandy Levinson made this point at Balkinization some time ago. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 7:32 am by Glenn Reynolds
I wrote the foreword, Sandy Levinson wrote the afterword, and an all-star cast including Randy Barnett, Brannon Denning, Richard Epstein, Tim Lynch, Rob Natelson, and too many other luminaries to mention contributed the stuff in between. [read post]
13 Jul 2011, 8:59 am by Jonah Gelbach
Over at Balkinization, Sandy Levinson characterized this plan as "delegation run riot," but he seems to have misunderstood the proposal. [read post]
12 Jul 2011, 4:59 pm by Joey Fishkin
Following up on Sandy’s post, McConnell’s trial balloon today was, I believe, several degrees more cynical than Sandy suggests. [read post]
11 Jul 2011, 6:10 pm by Lovechilde
In another post for Balkinization, University of Texas at Austin law professor Sandy Levinson suggests that Obama take the alternative route of educating the public “about the unconstitutional behavior of his Republican adversaries. [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 2:25 pm by Frank Pasquale
Sandy Levinson has posted interesting reflections on our tendency to “absolutize” the public debt. [read post]
10 Jul 2011, 2:25 pm by Frank Pasquale
Sandy Levinson has posted interesting reflections on our tendency to "absolutize" the public debt. [read post]
5 Jul 2011, 7:44 am by Ken Kersch
One of my pet peeves – and an inspiration for my current project – is that the court-centered obsessions of law professors (much lamented by Sandy Levinson, amongst others) have led us to believe that the phrase “constitutional theory” applies only to theories advanced to advise judges about the “best” or “only legitimate way” to interpret the constitutional text. [read post]
21 Jun 2011, 7:21 pm by Big Tent Democrat
Also, at Balkinization, Sandy Levinson writes a post titled Life In A Constitutional Dictatorship: It is now crystal clear that Obama does not represent a true repudiation of the Bush Administration, but, rather, a (somewhat) kindler and gentler version of its claims vis-a-vis presidential power and what is defined by the White House as "national security. [read post]