Monday, June 11, 2012
Friday, June 8, 2012
Thursday, June 7, 2012
"Maybe if I press this button..."
I'm sure you've seen this, Mr. Gillette:
It's a bona fide viral video. But, watching it, my thoughts turned to this great post of yours. Suffice it to say, I am not made of sterner stuff than you.
It's a bona fide viral video. But, watching it, my thoughts turned to this great post of yours. Suffice it to say, I am not made of sterner stuff than you.
What Can We Learn From Germany?
Over at The Atlantic, Prof. James R. Maxeiner has an interesting post comparing and contrasting the American and German systems of civil justice. His conclusion is that that German system is vastly superior:
The virtues of German civil justice are clear. In the German system, judges are narrowing issues in dispute from the beginning. By the time they are ready to decide the case, the parties know upon which disputed facts the decision will turn. With each step forward, the decision of the case becomes increasingly predictable. Parties may read the handwriting on the wall and settle the case, not because the costs of going forward are too high but to avoid the litigation risk of an adverse decision. Throughout the process, an engaged and empowered judiciary ensures a speedy, reasoned, and equitable resolution.
What the United States needs are judges that decide. The job of judges is not to superintend contests -- it is to judge. Through taking an interest in applying law to facts from the very beginning of lawsuits, American judges may help Americans realize at long last the right that they have claimed since 1776: that everyone "ought to have remedy by the course of the law of the land, and ought to have justice and right, freely without sale, fully without any denial, and speedily without delay, according to the law of the land."As a future judge, what are your thoughts, Mr. Gillette?
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Texas Executes Corporations All The Time
A popular trope among a certain set is, "I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one."
This is a clever and amusing way to point out that human beings are alive and corporations are not. It also insinuates that conservatives in Texas like to kill people even while they worship at the altar of corporate personhood.
But, in fact, Texas does execute corporations all the time. In this context, however, the death penalty is called "involuntary dissolution." Indeed, among the many bases for a court-ordered involuntary dissolution is when a Texas corporation is convicted of a felony. In other words, a corporation faces the death penalty whenever it (or a "high managerial agent" acting on its behalf) is convicted of a felony.
When a corporation is involuntarily dissolved the capacity it formerly had to prosecute a cause of action is vested in its shareholders. In other words, the corporation vanishes and nothing is left but the human beings who owned it. Human beings that, presumably, Texas can go ahead and execute.
This is a clever and amusing way to point out that human beings are alive and corporations are not. It also insinuates that conservatives in Texas like to kill people even while they worship at the altar of corporate personhood.
But, in fact, Texas does execute corporations all the time. In this context, however, the death penalty is called "involuntary dissolution." Indeed, among the many bases for a court-ordered involuntary dissolution is when a Texas corporation is convicted of a felony. In other words, a corporation faces the death penalty whenever it (or a "high managerial agent" acting on its behalf) is convicted of a felony.
When a corporation is involuntarily dissolved the capacity it formerly had to prosecute a cause of action is vested in its shareholders. In other words, the corporation vanishes and nothing is left but the human beings who owned it. Human beings that, presumably, Texas can go ahead and execute.
"Democracy died tonight."
"The end of the USA as we know it just happened":
I guess that makes Mr. Gillette a murderer, given his pro-Walker sentiment.
On the other hand, to stay abreast of the memes of the moment, perhaps the proper sentiment to Wisconsin Democrats is "good job! good effort! good job! good effort!":
I guess that makes Mr. Gillette a murderer, given his pro-Walker sentiment.
On the other hand, to stay abreast of the memes of the moment, perhaps the proper sentiment to Wisconsin Democrats is "good job! good effort! good job! good effort!":
Thought(s) on Wisconsin's Recall.
I am writing this on the morning of the Wisconsin recall election. However because I want to make that nothing suppresses the vote of our Reader(s)™, I am not posting it until midnight. By then, I assume everyone will have voted.
The folks at the 538 election blog are not officially predicting that Governor Scott Walker will win but are suggesting that it seems likely that Governor Walker will win. This strikes me as a good result.
I do not think that it is a good result because I think that Governor Walker has good policies. Actually, I think he has bad policies. To be fair, I do not know every one of Governor Walker's policies so there may be some that are good policies. I can say that Wisconsin's state government has done a lot of things since Governor Walker took office that made me glad I no longer live in Wisconsin. Also, there are allegations which suggest that Governor Walker's stint as Milwaukee County Executive involved breaking the law and that Governor Walker is the target of criminal investigations. So, between bad policies and possible law breaking, if I were still living in Wisconsin I would probably not vote for Scott Walker. In the interest of full disclosure, I did vote for Scott Walker when we were in college together. That did not work out too well for him.
Given this, why would I think a win by Governor Walker would be a good thing? Mostly because I think that recalling elected officials because you disagree with their policies is no way to run a state. Elections are supposed to have consequences. If they do not, because the losing side simply starts a recall effort as soon as possible, governments will be paralyzed from taking any action ever. Presumably even the most ardent advocates of limited government would agree that there are some circumstances where action needs to take place. Wisconsin's recall craze calls to mind California's obsession with ballot propositions. As the Economist notes, this sort of direct democracy has been disastrous for California. At a certain point, people need to let their elected representatives govern.
According to this, there have only been 3 recall elections of governors in U.S. history. Does anyone think that if Tom Barrett won this election, the number would not change to 4? A Mayor Barrett win would encourage people unhappy with that result to start a recall election of him as soon as they are allowed to do so. Wisconsin taxpayers are paying $18 million to fund this recall and would undoubtedly be paying a similar amount in 2013 or 2014 if Governor Walker loses. Wisconsin has better ways to spend its money.
While a loss by Governor Walker will undoubtedly lead to another recall, I suspect that if Governor Walker wins, then the recall mania in Wisconsin will stop. In the long run, Wisconsin will be better off with that result.
The folks at the 538 election blog are not officially predicting that Governor Scott Walker will win but are suggesting that it seems likely that Governor Walker will win. This strikes me as a good result.
I do not think that it is a good result because I think that Governor Walker has good policies. Actually, I think he has bad policies. To be fair, I do not know every one of Governor Walker's policies so there may be some that are good policies. I can say that Wisconsin's state government has done a lot of things since Governor Walker took office that made me glad I no longer live in Wisconsin. Also, there are allegations which suggest that Governor Walker's stint as Milwaukee County Executive involved breaking the law and that Governor Walker is the target of criminal investigations. So, between bad policies and possible law breaking, if I were still living in Wisconsin I would probably not vote for Scott Walker. In the interest of full disclosure, I did vote for Scott Walker when we were in college together. That did not work out too well for him.
Given this, why would I think a win by Governor Walker would be a good thing? Mostly because I think that recalling elected officials because you disagree with their policies is no way to run a state. Elections are supposed to have consequences. If they do not, because the losing side simply starts a recall effort as soon as possible, governments will be paralyzed from taking any action ever. Presumably even the most ardent advocates of limited government would agree that there are some circumstances where action needs to take place. Wisconsin's recall craze calls to mind California's obsession with ballot propositions. As the Economist notes, this sort of direct democracy has been disastrous for California. At a certain point, people need to let their elected representatives govern.
According to this, there have only been 3 recall elections of governors in U.S. history. Does anyone think that if Tom Barrett won this election, the number would not change to 4? A Mayor Barrett win would encourage people unhappy with that result to start a recall election of him as soon as they are allowed to do so. Wisconsin taxpayers are paying $18 million to fund this recall and would undoubtedly be paying a similar amount in 2013 or 2014 if Governor Walker loses. Wisconsin has better ways to spend its money.
While a loss by Governor Walker will undoubtedly lead to another recall, I suspect that if Governor Walker wins, then the recall mania in Wisconsin will stop. In the long run, Wisconsin will be better off with that result.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Judge Easterbrook on ideology at the Supreme Court
Some interesting comments from Judge Frank Easterbrook's commencement speech at Swarthmore:
We have about a month to go in the Supreme Court's current term. Many 5-4 decisions are impending. The press will bemoan the Justices' inability to agree and assert that the Justices' ideology explain the divisions. Those of you who have encountered the attitudinal model in class will nod sagely. You, and the press, will be wrong.
Suppose the Justices who are usually called "conservative" were to resign tomorrow and be replaced by President Obama. The reconstituted Court still would find lots of cases to be hard. It would grant review of those hard cases and decide many of them five to four. Cases that the Roberts Court finds hard and decides 5-4, this hypothetical Court would find easy and decide 9-0; lawyers would stop presenting those disputes. But they would bring more and more of the disputes that divide the new Court.
To those who specialize in economic analysis of law, the effect is known as selection pressure in litigation. The choices made by lawyers, and the judges themselves, ensure substantial disagreement even when there is no ideological difference among the judges - which also makes it hard to blame politics for the disagreement we actually observe. The rate of disagreement among the Justices has been stable for more than 70 years.1 The Court had the same rate of dissent in 1945 as in 2005, though in 1945 eight of the nine Justices had been appointed by a single President. Selection pressure is responsible for this stability.
Justin Blackmon incriminates himself.
Mr. Torvik normally handles the sports news around here but I noticed this story about former Oklahoma State Cowboy and future Jacksonville Jaguar Justin Blackmon. Mr. Blackmon was arrested in Stillwater, Oklahoma. Stillwater, of course, is the home of Oklahoma State University.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)