Search for: "Sandy Levinson"
Results 421 - 440
of 575
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Sep 2009, 3:30 am
And surely if Sandy Levinson had been invited to write a chapter, more of this perspective would have been included.One might have expected more attention to recent battles in state constitutionalism in the volume especially, if only because progressives have ultimately prevailed in state courts with arguments the federal courts have thus far rejected. [read post]
19 Sep 2009, 7:03 am
Feldman, Michael Klarman, Alexander Keyssar, Sandy Levinson, and Mark Tushnet. [read post]
1 Sep 2009, 8:30 am
Sandy Levinson responds to Paul Krugman's column blaming "our corporate-cash-dominated [political] system" for the stall on health care. [read post]
27 Aug 2009, 12:01 am
Update: For a post saying the exact opposite of everything I am saying here, see Sandy Levinson's thoughts here. [read post]
18 Aug 2009, 11:00 am
That, in a nutshell, is the theme of this recent article by my former colleague Sandy Levinson. [read post]
24 Jul 2009, 5:14 am
This issue ties into a subject that two bloggers on this site, Jack Balkin and Sandy Levinson, have written about: felon disenfranchisement laws. [read post]
13 Jul 2009, 9:12 am
Here are some reasons we should care about this, some of them drawn specifically from Levinson and some from things that Al, Sandy, or I have written. [read post]
13 Jun 2009, 10:33 am
- Judge Frank Easterbrook Sandy Levinson discusses the issues I wrote about yesterday - the dissonance between the insistence by extreme conservatives that the individual 2nd Amendment rights discovered by the Roberts Court in Heller be incorporated into the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and their stated commitment to the New Federalism. [read post]
2 Jun 2009, 11:35 pm
At the LSA, I attended the "Many Faces of Constitutionalism" panel, for which Sandy Levinson was the chair/discussant. [read post]
6 May 2009, 8:24 am
Is it true, as Sandy Levinson has observed, that legal theory's raison d'etre is commonly thought to be the never-ending supply of "happy endings to legal dilemmas" and the solution of people's problems -- tidily and without disruptive remainder whenever possible? [read post]
1 May 2009, 6:10 pm
Nita Farahany has posted the following paper to SSRN: "Law and Behavioral Morality" NOMOS LII: EVOLUTION AND MORALITY, Sandy Levinson, ed., 2009Vanderbilt Public Law Research Paper No. 09-03 NITA A. [read post]
27 Apr 2009, 3:50 am
in the 1968 election.Contrast Ackerman's model with the model of change that Sandy Levinson and I have proposed. [read post]
23 Apr 2009, 6:51 am
However, Harcourt himself advocates the "legalize and regulate" approach since the necessity defense is just a way to "legalize and regulate," as we pointed out in the article, repeating a point made by Sandy Levinson several years ago. [read post]
21 Apr 2009, 2:18 pm
Sandy Levinson noted that President Obama said to the CIA yesterday that: What makes the United States special and what makes you special is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and our ideals even when it’s hard, not just when it’s easy, even when we are afraid and under threat, not just when its expedient to do so.... [read post]
31 Mar 2009, 11:41 am
" Sandy Levinson (who, in full disclosure, was a professor of mine while I was in law school) is quoted as saying that "Heller will more likely than not turn out to be of no significance to anyone but constitutional theorists. [read post]
30 Mar 2009, 3:34 pm
"I agree with Sandy on one thing: Senator Gillibrand's response to the story is weak. [read post]
29 Mar 2009, 6:12 pm
Sandy Levinson blogs on it here. [read post]
4 Mar 2009, 8:34 am
James Read, the author of the new University of Kansas Press book on John Calhoun, Majority Rule versus Consensus, has asked me to post the following comment, which I am happy to do:I would like to follow up on Sandy Levinson's post, "Does Calhoun still live? [read post]
3 Mar 2009, 6:05 am
(Sandy Levinson's post immediately below pointing out the antidemocratic difficulties created by the filibuster might suggest that Obama won't be able to pass anything. [read post]
13 Feb 2009, 8:57 am
Sandy Levinson of this blog has also signed onto that proposal; however, in this op-ed Sandy has also argued for a different proposal that would feature fixed 18 year terms for the Justices.Here is the proposal for regularizing Supreme Court appointments:PROPOSAL I: REGULAR APPOINTMENTS TOTHE SUPREME COURTOne question to be considered is the prospect that as Justices retain power for extended lengths of time, appointments to the Court are made so infrequently as to… [read post]
