Tag: law

Joe Selvaggi talks with Pacific Legal Foundation’s state legal policy deputy, attorney Jim Manley, about home equity theft, a practice that has taken 350 properties in Massachusetts, dispossessing homeowners of more than $50 million in equity. They discussed the case that the PLF took to the Supreme Court and won, rendering the laws in the 21 other states that practice it unconstitutional.

Guest:

Joe Selvaggi talks with retired Federal Judge Frank Bailey, president of Pioneer Public Interest Law Center, about the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s decision in Hill-Junious v. UTP Realty, LLC, regarding the limits of liability for a landlord when a murder occurs near her tenant’s location, and the challenges facing small entrepreneurs in high-crime communities.

The Hon. Frank J. Bailey was the United States Bankruptcy Judge for the District of Massachusetts (ret.). He has also served as an appellate judge on the First Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Judge Bailey served as judicial law clerk with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, an associate at the Boston office of Sullivan & Worcester LLP, and spent 22 years as a partner at Sherin and Lodgen LLP. Judge Bailey was elected by his peers to serve as the President of the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges (“NCBJ”), a position that he held until October 2021. He has been active in leadership positions in the American Bar Association, including as the Judicial Member at Large on the ABA Board of Governors and as a member of the ABA Executive Committee. Judge Bailey served as the Chair of the National Conference of Federal Trial Judges, an ABA entity that includes over 400 federal judges. Beyond his judicial leadership positions, Judge Bailey has served as the Chair of the Immigrant Learning Center in Malden, Massachusetts, a board member of the Institute for Immigration Research at George Mason University, as President of the Massachusetts Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, and on the Massachusetts Council of the New England Legal Foundation. Judge Bailey served as adjunct faculty at the Boston University School of Law and at New England Law School. He currently teaches Advanced Business Restructuring at Suffolk University School of Law. He has been active in international judicial training and legal education, including in Argentina, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Russia, Uzbekistan, and Ukraine. He received his undergraduate degree from Georgetown University, School of Foreign Service (BSFS in economics) in 1977 and his JD from Suffolk University in 1980. Judge Bailey retired from judicial service on June 1, 2022.

Member Post

 

I have heard a bunch about Trump.  He seems destined for jail.  The problem is I am not sure for what or why.I keep hearing that he mentioned that he commented about security documents.  But I really don’t know if he had these documents or showed them to anybody.  Same with the stuff elsewhere.  A […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Autonomy vs. Aseity

 

During my Ph.D. dissertation defense, a question was raised about my use of the term “aseity” and its application to my research. Believing The Personal Eternal Triune Creator to be the source and sustenance of all things, I used the theological word that means God is self-sufficient and independent; in short, He does not need us.

The applied principle of God’s separate status is imperative in a Hebraic-Christian view of social order. Often human governments and social rules have sought to argue for human autonomy, we, being a law unto ourselves (“auto” = self, “nomos” = law). Humans, left to themselves, will seek independence and self-sufficiency instead of seeing the beneficence to all people by dependence on Divine Directives. A few observations of both autonomy and aseity follow.

Joe Selvaggi talks with legal scholar and George Mason University professor Ilya Somin about the legal merits of the federal indictments against former President Donald Trump and what is likely to come next in the legal proceedings against him and other defendants in the cases involving the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election.

Guest

The immigration system in the United States is complex, to say the least. Visa categories for nearly every letter of the alphabet, exemptions, restrictions, rule changes with every new federal administration. We need more workers, innovators and entrepreneurs in an increasingly competitive world and amid an historic worker shortage and cash-strapped social safety systems due to a greying workforce. Does the United States’ immigration system work in its favor? For Erick Widman, immigration lawyer and founder of Passage Immigration Law in Portland, Oregon, it does not. 

Erick grew up in northern California and now lives in Portland, Oregon with his wife and three kids. He attended UCLA and the University of California, Davis for law school. Prior to starting his own law practice in 2007, Erick was in-house counsel at Philips corporation in California for over three years where he handled various international and immigration legal issues. He spent a year teaching international law at the Budapest College of Economics and interned with a Superior Court judge. Erick has practiced law since 2004 and is a member of both the Oregon and California state bars. Because immigration law is a federal practice area, Erick is able to serve clients in any state in the U.S. and around the world. Erick is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).

Joe Selvaggi talks with constitutional scholar Ilya Somin about the merits and likely success of the two Supreme Court cases Nebraska v. Biden and Department of Education v. Brown, which challenge the President’s constitutional right to cancel more than $400 billion in student debt.

Guest:

Legal Beagles 101

 

Have you ever seen the 1973 movie The Paper Chase? The movie is, among other things, about the rigors of law school. In the movie, the students live in fear of being interrogated in front of their Contract Law class by the legendary and demanding Professor Kingsfield. Below is a clip from the movie which shows this process in action (it’s about three minutes long).

Twixt Gentleman and Brigand

 

Our own Susan Quinn recently wrote an interesting post exploring the wisdom of Judge James Ho’s recent decision to disfavor Yale Law School graduates when seeking judicial clerks. In Should a Judge Use Cancel Culture to Boycott Cancel Culture?, Susan presents arguments for and against Judge Ho’s position (which echoes that of the late Judge Laurence Silberman).

Judge Ho’s position has been mischaracterized by some on both the left and right as a form of viewpoint discrimination: what the judge is doing, given this understanding, is rejecting a particularly left-leaning law school because it is particularly left-leaning. I disagree. What the judge is doing is, as I tried to make clear in my comments to Susan’s post, objecting to Yale’s institutional intolerance to diversity of thought. That’s a very different thing: the judge rejects a process that betrays our civilizational norms of open discourse and free expression. And well he should.

The Limits of the Law, and Getting Led Down Rhetorical Alleyways

 

Was Kyle Rittenhouse acting in self-defense when he shot Joseph Rosenbaum, Anthony Huber, and Gaige Grosskreutz on August 25, 2020? That is the question the jury will have to answer. That is the only question the jury has to answer. The trial as envisioned by most news outlets and Twitter will, or at least should, settle an array of other questions. Should Kyle Rittenhouse have traveled to Kenosha that evening? Was he planning on being a vigilante? Does he suffer from a hero complex? Is he a good person?

Those asking these questions aren’t stroking their chins while deep in thought, they aren’t poring over the evidence, they aren’t asking. They’ve long had their answers—the trial is just a formality. These questions are interesting in a philosophical sense. They are irrelevant to the trial. Kyle Rittenhouse is not my friend, acquaintance, family member, coworker, employee, lover, or peer. I’m in no need to assess his character, judgment, intellect, or moral compass. He isn’t in the news because the country sees in his case grist for a hearty debate about ethics. He’s in the news because it is being decided whether the state will use taxpayer money to keep him locked in a cage for years.

Member Post

 

We need a new federal law.  The law would punish abuses of power by government (federal, state and local) officials and employees.  My vision is for a law that: Provides for both civil and criminal liability for government officials who abuse government power. Prohibits the DOJ or other government attorneys from defending the government official […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

This week on “The Learning Curve,” Gerard and Cara talk with Melvin Urofsky, Professor of Law & Public Policy and Professor Emeritus of History at Virginia Commonwealth University, and the author of several books, including Louis D. Brandeis: A Life and Dissent and the Supreme Court. Professor Urofsky shares insights on Justice Brandeis’s jurisprudence, and why he consistently ranks among the three most influential Supreme Court justices in American history. They discuss his understanding of American constitutionalism, and how he interpreted the law to diminish consolidated financial and federal power, what he called the “curse of bigness” – big banks and business monopolies, as well as big government. They also explore Brandeis’s dissenting opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court case New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, perhaps the best-known 20th-century articulation of the role of the states as “laboratories of democracy” under our federal constitutional system. They delve into some of the most influential dissenting opinions in U.S. Supreme Court history. For example, Justice John Marshall Harlan, the lone dissenter in the Court’s infamous 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson case, offered legal views that would later lead to the landmark 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision overturning “separate but equal.” Professor Urofsky also offers thoughts from his 2020 book, The Affirmative Action Puzzle: A Living History from Reconstruction to Today, on one of the thorniest political and legal topics of our era. He concludes the interview with a reading from Justice Brandeis’s concurring opinion in defense of free speech in Whitney v. California.

Stories of the Week: Cara and Gerard discuss National Charter Schools Week, and this education sector’s success in improving opportunity for underserved students. In Florida, nearly 95 percent of seniors enrolled in the state’s Tax Credit Scholarship program graduated from high school during the 2019-20 school year, the second highest graduation rate since they began tracking it in 2015. A new study of admissions at 99 colleges shows that despite adopting test-optional policies to increase diversity, the share of low-income students or students of color at these colleges has risen by only a percentage point.

Member Post

 

What happens when pandemic fears combine with criminalization of pre-pandemic norms? Judges take a holiday and over-capacity prisons set people loose while other accused citizens remain imprisoned for half-a-year or more without trial. From Greg Googan at FOX 26 Houston:  Preview Open

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

Member Post

 

This little article was inspired by and will mostly discuss a little Dan McLaughlin Tweet: George, if you have a free moment, could you ask @ProjectLincoln to apologize for its attack on one of our profession's core values? https://t.co/P3uMC9jmUd https://t.co/PxQzU5Fn0t — Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) November 18, 2020 Preview Open

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

QoTD: Push Polls and the Wrong Answers

 

Hi Thomas, I’m Mercedes w/ For our Future WI. We’re conducting a survey and want to hear from you. Our first question is simple. With everything that’s going on right now, what’s the biggest issue facing you & your family right now?

Spammers texting me without even getting my name right. Or were you thinking less immediately than “right now?” Well, the intersection between what’s possible with digital technology and what kind of human interactions are fundamentally destructive (mass push polls for example) ranks reasonably high on my list of worries. Is that one of the options? Somehow I think you’ll have to tick the “other” box on your form.

The Rule of Lawyers II: The Lawyering

 

Quick quiz question: How many current Supreme Court judges can you name?

I’ll give you a moment to consider, but don’t take too long. It’s a trick question; the proper answer ought to be zero. Lady Justice is blind. Traditionally that means justice ought not care about the skin color of the defendant, or their wealth or poverty or anything else. Justice is concerned with the fundamental equality of all men, not accidents of nature or position. However, we ought to be able to run that backward; truly just judges ought to be indistinguishable. So why is it that you not only know the Justices’ names but can lay a wager as to how they’d rule on any given controversy?

Member Post

 

Our own Sam Jacobs sat down with Matthew Larosiere. Matthew Larosiere is the Director of Legal Policy at the Firearms Policy Coalition and an unashamed supporter of the Second Amendment without exceptions. He is also an early adopter of the 3D printer, something that he has become very skilled at using to make full firearms, […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.