The strong opinion by 1CA holding that police officers who prevent people from recording them in public are acting in violation of the First Amendment is obviously good news. It also seems to imply pretty clearly that laws attempting to ban the practice would be...
Author: Scott Lemieux
Apparently, it's now considered dirty pool for candidates of either party to mention that another candidate believes that extremely popular federal programs violate the Constitution.
This is certainly the creepiest thing I've seen in a long time. The audience reaction makes it even worse than it looks on paper.
Obviously, it's encouraging that the new chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers is the kind of economist for whom empirical evidence trumps models. Brad Plumer does us a very useful service by looking more broadly at his academic work.
Definitely one thing the Obama administration got right.
I think most baseball fans would get the right answer if asked to name the team with the worst run differential this year (Houston, of course.) But I'm guessing not.
The latest from the always-inexplicable Frank Bruni surely demands a blogger ethics and quality panel. I think Althouse's guest columns were more substantive and coherent.
I assume the "get it right" means that Prick Erry's strategy will simply be to deny that when he wrote that Social Security was unconstitutional he meant that Social security.
Of course not. To amplify Matt's response to Althouse's silly dodging and weaving about Paul merely wanting to "divert[] the matter to the state courts," let's consider the content of.
Let's just say I remain unconvinced that Obama's reappointment of Bernake was a good idea.
I appreciate what I'll charitably assume is the dry wit, but I think the mistake is using the word "impact" at all: Former New York Gov. George Pataki has decided.
Sad, but true.