"[J]udges are ill suited to resolve social problems."

Dahlia Lithwick has a column at The Nation entitled, "One Nation by and for the Corporations." The unsurprising thesis is that the courts, most notably the Supreme Court, are bought and paid for by business interests. According to Lithwick, this campaign is insidious and damaging:

There is ample language in the Court’s recent rulings to demonstrate that judges are ill suited to resolve social problems, that such efforts should be constrained and monitored and fundamentally mistrusted. But it’s one thing to trim the sails of the judicial branch; it’s quite another to transfer power that once rested with the judiciary directly back to groups that hold power already. Whether it’s through forced arbitration, limited class certification, shifting burdens of proof or other subtle tricks, the Court has gone beyond locking out litigants and well into the realm of aiding and abetting powerful corporate interests.

It is ironic to see that the liberal position has become that judges are ill-suited to solve social problems. But perhaps judges are ill-suited to resolve social problems only when their resolution is favored by conservatives. Or perhaps, as some say, liberals should not hate the players, but rather hate the game (even though they made up the rules).

Newt Gingrich sells donor list to ... identity protection racket

Newt Gingrich's campaign is having some financial problems, as detailed in this excellent piece at Politico. Elsewhere, Molly Ball at the Atlantic reveals that the information was purchased by LifeLock, an identity protection company, which sent Newt's supporters an email trumpeting "A Special Offer for Newt Gingrich Fans!"

This is brilliant marketing. I can't think of any better way to promote identity-protection services then an unsolicited email from a company that you've never heard of saying, in effect, "you don't know us, but we know you." This really puts the protection into the identity-protection racket.

Oops

The National Law Journal has a story about one of the four law schools here in Minnesota.  When US New issued its best law school rankings, I quit looking after number 19 as that is where our Alma Mater was ranked.  More astute readers of the rankings noticed that some changes occurred in how the other Minnesota Law Schools are ranked.  Specifically, unlike previous years where the William Mitchell College of Law was the next highest ranked Minnesota law school, this year the University of St. Thomas came in at No. 119 ahead of both William Mitchell at No. 127 and Hamline University which was listed as “Rank not published.”  However it turns out there was a flaw in the ranking.

Dangerous moves

A while back, I mentioned that until just a few years ago "dancing in the streets" was illegal in Minneapolis.

Apparently, however, dancing in the Jefferson Memorial remains criminal:



More here.

UPDATE:  As the article at Reason.com notes, these reprobates were at the Jefferson Memorial because of a recent D.C. Circuit case holding that there is no constitutionally protected right to dance in the Jefferson Memorial.  Here's my favorite part of the opinion:

In creating and maintaining the Jefferson Memorial in particular, the government has dedicated a space with a solemn commemorative purpose that is incompatible with the full range of free expression that is permitted in public forums.

Yes, you read that right:  the most powerful appeals court in the land actually wrote that "the Jefferson Memorial [is] . . . a space . . . that is incompatible with the full range of free expression."

Whoa.

'“I gave up my rental thinking I would have a house,” said Ms. Ducksworth, a 28-year-old catering assistant. “Now I’m sharing a room with my son. What the hell is up with that?”'

The New York Times reports on the latest housing crisis:  the lack of foreclosures.