<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: elena kagan</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'elena kagan'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22elena+kagan%22&t=%22elena+kagan%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 02:26:15 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Supreme Court Denies Expedited Obamacare Review</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4747598&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FmI-WS98fJEs%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroThat the Supreme Court declined to take up the Obamacare litigation before even a single appellate court had ruled on it is neither surprising nor game-changing.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli&amp;#8217;s cert petition, whatever its merits (which were several), was a long-shot to begin with as a matter of practice and procedure.  Cato, like all other interested parties, has continued filing briefs in and commenting on the various cases on appeal around the country. 
The only noteworthy point here is that Justice Elena Kagan apparently participated in the consideration of the petition, which indicates that she won&amp;#8217;t be recused when one of these cases does hit the Court.  This too isn&amp;#8217;t terribly surprising: I&amp;#8217;m still digging through the documents reg...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4747598</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:55:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4747598</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Government Can Tax Your Income, But It Doesn’t Own It in the First Place</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4676754&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FvaQFtvT5V3c%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroAs Andrew and Adam have already explained, today’s decision in ACSTO v. Winn, though grounded in the technical legal doctrine of “standing,” is a big win for school choice and state flexibility in education reform.  Even more importantly, it makes clear that there is a difference between tax credits and government spending; to find that tax money was used for unconstitutional ends here would have assumed that all income is government property until the state allows taxpayers to keep a portion of it.  That is not, to put it mildly, how we think of private property.
Of course, even had the Court found that Arizona’s scholarship scheme involved the use of state funds, the program would have been insulated from Establishment Clause challenge because it offered the “g...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4676754</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 04 Apr 2011 19:18:53 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4676754</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>I’m Not So Sure I Like Your Mental Activity</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4549738&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FamnxoVJRyRA%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonThe latest federal judge to declare ObamaCare constitutional claimed that Congress can regulate &quot;mental activity,&quot; like the mental activity of choosing not to purchase health insurance.  Or shoes and ships and sealing wax.  Or my book.
National Review editor Rich Lowry has an excellent column explaining why this latest, ahem, legal victory for ObamaCare &quot;delivered a more telling blow against the law in the course of ruling it constitutional than critics have in assailing it as a travesty...It's the most self-undermining defense of the constitutionality of a dubious statute since then–solicitor general Elena Kagan told the Supreme Court that under campaign-finance reform, the government could ban certain pamphlets.&quot;
I&amp;#8217;m Not So Sure I Like Your Mental Activity i...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4549738</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2011 15:32:51 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4549738</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Legal Battle Over Adverse Event Disclosure</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4331234&amp;cid=t_238534_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F1Fdv37mljqA%2F</link>
            <description>Should drugmakers disclose all adverse event reports that may not show statistically significant evidence that a side effect is actually caused by a specific drug? The issue is now before the US Supreme Court involving a case brought by investors against Matrixx Initiatives, which was sued for allegedly concealing side effect reports that its Zicam over-the-counter cold med caused people to lose their sense of smell, known as anosmia (back story).
And in oral arguments yesterday, the case made by the lawyer for Matrixx may not have passed the smell test after he insisted Matrixx did not commit fraud when it failed to disclose cases in which Zicam patients reportedly lost their sense of smell. Since drugmakers receive real or hearsay adverse event reports almost every day, Jon Hacker mainta...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4331234</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 16:06:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4331234</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Another New Supreme Court Term, Another New Justice</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4027151&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FVxq4Zjb-mkk%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroToday is the first Monday in October, the traditional start of the Supreme Court term.  While we have yet to see as many blockbuster constitutional cases on the docket as we did last term—which, despite the high profile 5-4 splits in McDonald v. Chicago and Citizens United actually produced fewer dissents than any in recent memory—we do look forward to:

Two big free speech challenges, one over a statute prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors, another the offensive protesting of a fallen soldier’s funeral;
An Establishment Clause lawsuit against Arizona’s tax credit for private tuition funds (an alternative to educational voucher programs);
Regulatory federalism (or “preemption”) cases involving:

safety standards for seatbelts;
an Arizona statute...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4027151</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2010 11:06:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4027151</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>---</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3827041&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36050&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fblisstree.com%2Flive%2F193145%2F</link>
            <description>Elena Kagan Confirmed to U.S. Supreme Court: The Senate voted 63-37 today, making Elena Kagan the fourth woman to be named to the Supreme Court. (via Bloomberg)
Post from: BlissTree (Source: Breastfeeding 1-2-3)</description>
            <author>Breastfeeding 1-2-3</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3827041</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:56:11 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3827041</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Kagan’s Confirmation Could Be High-Water Mark for Big Government</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3827052&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FUrvRaODwuSU%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroElena Kagan’s confirmation represents a victory for big government and a view of the Constitution as a document whose meaning changes with the times.  Based on what we learned the last few months, it is clear that Kagan holds an expansive view of federal power &amp;#8212; refusing to identify, for example, any specific actions Congress cannot take under the Commerce Clause.  She will rarely be a friend of liberty on the Court.
It is thus telling that Kagan received the fewest votes of any Democratic nominee to the Supreme Court in history, beating the record set only last year by Sonia Sotomayor.  Even several senators who had voted for Sotomayor voted against Kagan, including Democrat Ben Nelson &amp;#8212; as did Scott Brown, the darling of these high-profile Senate votes.
It...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3827052</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 05 Aug 2010 20:03:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3827052</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>New York Times vs. the Constitution</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3790693&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F6faLQgCwdCQ%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroLast Monday, the New York Times ran an editorial, &amp;#8220;The Republicans and the Constitution,&amp;#8221; lamenting how Elena Kagan&amp;#8217;s nomination &amp;#8221;has become a flashpoint for a much larger debate about the fundamental role of American government.&amp;#8221;  (I, of course, was hoping that this was the direction the debate would go.)  The Old Gray Lady was particularly aghast that Congress&amp;#8217;s expansive use of the Commerce Clause was being maligned.  Don&amp;#8217;t those retrograde obstructionists know that as long as the government passes laws the progressive elite &amp;#8212; especially the New York Times editorial board &amp;#8212; deigns beneficial, no silly constitutional arguments can possibly be germane?
As you could expect, I found quite a bit to quibble with h...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3790693</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:24:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3790693</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Public Service: Does Having An Opinion Disqualify You?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3790706&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fpublic-service-does-having-an-opinion-disqualify-you%2F2010.07.26</link>
            <description>Many conservatives are up-in-arms about President Obama&amp;#8217;s decision to appoint Don Berwick, a pediatrician and renowned expert in quality improvement and patient safety, to lead the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). They object to Dr. Berwick&amp;#8217;s views on a range of issues, and to Obama&amp;#8217;s decision to use his office&amp;#8217;s authority to appoint Dr. Berwick while the Senate was out on a short Independence Day holiday recess. As a &amp;#8220;recess appointment,&amp;#8221; Dr. Berwick was able to take office without Senate hearings and confirmation, but he can only serve through the end of the 111th Congress &amp;#8212; that is, until the end of 2011 &amp;#8212; unless ratified by the Senate.
Berwick, though, also has many supporters. Maggie Mahar articulates the &amp;#8220;pro&amp;#8221...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3790706</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3790706</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Judiciary Committee Approves Big-Government Advocate</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3772224&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FqwAjmCTvKJM%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroElana Kagan has just sailed through the Senate Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote (except Lindsey Graham, of course, who maintained his respectable but &amp;#8212; to my mind &amp;#8211; overly deferential &amp;#8220;elections have consequences&amp;#8221; line).  This vote comes as no surprise to anyone who’s been keeping half an eye on the Kagan nomination.  The only senator whose position wasn’t obvious after the confirmation hearings was Arlen Specter, who continued his self-serving ways in criticizing the nominee for the majority of an op-ed before announcing that her approval for televised Supreme Court hearings and Thurgood Marshall constituted “just enough” to win his vote.  (This is clearly an attempt to curry favor with the administration and become an envoy to Sy...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3772224</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:30:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3772224</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop Urging No Vote On Kagan For Supreme Court</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3767013&amp;cid=t_238534_83_f&amp;fid=34856&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Finsidesurgery.com%2F2010%2F07%2Fsurgeon-general-everett-koop-urging-vote-kagan-supreme-court%2F</link>
            <description>C. Everett Koop, MD
Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has written a letter to the United States Senate urging them to vote against her confirmation to the United States Supreme Court based on her actions over the rewriting and editing of a medical society&amp;#8217;s statement on partial birth abortion. (Source: Inside Surgery)</description>
            <author>Inside Surgery</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3767013</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 02:09:46 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3767013</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>On the Separation of Press and State</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3753798&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F6tqf1_QRoEk%2F</link>
            <description>By Roger PilonAs it often does, The Wall Street Journal this morning offers us an op-ed with which it surely must disagree, entitled “Journalism Needs Government Help” – bringing to mind the fabled knock on the door: “Hi. I’m from the IRS and I’m here to help.” The author is no less than Lee Bollinger, former dean of the law school at the University of Michigan and now president of Columbia University, my undergraduate alma mater. As with many an academic, Bollinger has long been a friend of public-private partnerships: indeed, one could say he has lived by them. But the partnership at issue here is so fraught with peril that one wonders how it can be advanced as uncritically as it is in this little piece.
The argument, in essence, is this. The communications revolution has d...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3753798</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 16:01:51 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3753798</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Senators (Finally) Press Kagan about ObamaCare</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3753804&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FZthdcmVWQls%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonBack in May, I suggested:
Senate Judiciary Committee members should be sure to ask Solicitor General and Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, during her upcoming confirmation hearings, whether she or her office played any part in crafting ObamaCare or the administration’s defense to the lawsuits challenging that law. If Kagan helped to craft either, that would present a conflict of interest: when those lawsuits reach the Supreme Court, she would be sitting in judgment over a case in which she had already taken sides&amp;#8230;
If Kagan played a role in drafting ObamaCare or formulating the administration’s legal defense, and is confirmed by the Senate, propriety would dictate that she recuse herself from any challenges to that law that reach the high court.
Committee memb...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3753804</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 14:10:31 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3753804</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Will Specter Vote Against Kagan?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3714157&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FAtQ5zIAnbUM%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroI agree with Jillian Bandes’s characterization of the Democrats’ “bottom of the order” questioning (the committee being stacked 12-7, the day began with the junior Dems) and indeed was dreading having to sit through all sorts of parochial bloviations.  Even Al Franken wasn’t too exciting, just making the point Justice Kennedy was wrong not to consider in legislative history in arbitration cases and expounding at length on the theme that money in politics is bad and so therefore was Citizens United.  Kagan responded that “Congress’s intent is the only thing that matters [to statutory interpretation]”—a position sure to infuriate her future would-be colleague Justice Scalia—but also that the Court “should not re-write the law,” instead allowing Congre...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3714157</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:00:43 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3714157</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Elena Kagan Confirmation: Project Beltway</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3714398&amp;cid=t_238534_136_f&amp;fid=37852&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdonnatrussell.com%2F2010%2F06%2F30%2Felena-kagan-confirmation-project-beltway%2F</link>
            <description>New cartoon by Trussell &amp; Trussell on Politics Daily. Elena Kagan Confirmation: Project Beltway.
Filed under: Politics Daily Tagged: chaos theory, confirmation, elena kagan, hearing, political cartoon, scotus, senate, supreme court (Source: Donna Trussell)</description>
            <author>Donna Trussell</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3714398</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 15:14:11 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3714398</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Kagan May Well Become “The Liberal Scalia”</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3714166&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FOh1t0eckg08%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroMore highlights from Day 2 of the Kagan confirmation hearings:
•  In addition to backing away from President Obama’s empathy standard, Elena Kagan, under questioning by Senator Grassley, backs away from her “judicial hero” Aharon Barak, saying that she does not share his judicial philosophy, which involves judges making policy decisions and affirmatively shaping society.  This is an important concession.  Grassley also elicits the statement that only the president and Congress should worry about American influence in the world.
•  The wily Arlen Specter, in his last Supreme Court hearing (unless Justice Ginsburg retires over the summer), treats his questioning as a prosecutor would.  Technical questions and cutting off responses when Kagan begins to expound on...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3714166</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:32:58 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3714166</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Kagan the Tight-Lipped, Fair-Weather Originalist</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3710547&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FVkb0Y47ekDQ%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroHere’s what you have missed if you don’t have the luxury of watching C-SPAN all day:

Senator Sessions went after Kagan hard on the Military-Recruiting-at-Harvard imbroglio.  I don’t think he did any damage—which I’ll define as convincing someone on the fence to go against her—but the thing to keep in mind here is that the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy that so enraged then-Dean Kagan was federal law, not military policy.  Punishing the military for an act of Congress you disagree with—one on which you advised President Clinton—is disingenuous at best.  And I say this even though Cato supports ending DADT and filed a brief against the Defense Department in the Rumsfeld v. FAIR case involving denial of federal funds to schools who hamper military recruit...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3710547</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:02:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3710547</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Kagan Contra Kagan?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3710550&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fs9FY7MJ0UQU%2F</link>
            <description>By John SamplesThe Center for Competitive Politics has sponsored an analysis by Allison Hayward of Elena Kagan&amp;#8217;s writings on campaign finance regulation. It should be read widely, not least by the Senators trying to discern her fitness for the Court. Here&amp;#8217;s a taste of Allison&amp;#8217;s analysis:
In Kagan’s 1996 article, Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine, she “explicitly recognized that ‘campaign finance laws… easily can serve as incumbent-protection devices’ and when applied to certain speakers ‘the danger of illicit motive becomes even greater.&amp;#8217; It is impossible to square Kagan’s analysis in this article with her recent comments that the Supreme Court should have deferred to Congress in Citizens United...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3710550</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:43:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3710550</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Elena Kagan's History of Gay Rights Activism (Shocking!)</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3706645&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36050&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fblisstree.com%2Flive%2Felena-kagans-history-of-gay-rights-activism-shocking%2F</link>
            <description>photo: WENN.com
Today&amp;#8217;s the first day of Elena Kagan&amp;#8217;s confirmation hearings as President Obama&amp;#8217;s second Supreme Court nominee. Republicans will try to give Kagan a hard time, but she really doesn&amp;#8217;t have any major skeletons in her closet to give them fuel. Oh, aside from this one: She has a history of promoting gay rights. And she has short hair. Holy cow – she must be a lesbian, or at least she was one once. And having a lesbian on the Supreme Court would send America straight into the gutter. Obviously.
Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays has urged Kagan to come out as an &amp;#8220;ex-lesbian,&amp;#8221; while anti-gay group MassResistance is threatening to release a report of her activism for gay rights. Wait – a person pursuing equal rights for everyone as dec...</description>
            <author>Breastfeeding 1-2-3</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3706645</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 19:24:22 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3706645</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Democrats, Kagan, and the Second Amendment</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3706655&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FxTkaNa-2CgY%2F</link>
            <description>By Roger PilonToday Politico Arena asks:
What are the political implications for Democrats and for the Kagan hearings of today&amp;#8217;s Supreme Court gun decision?
My response:
The Supreme Court&amp;#8217;s decision today that the Second Amendment applies against the states cannot be helpful to Democrats in the upcoming elections or to Elena Kagan in her confirmation hearings. Most Court-watchers expected the decision to come out as it did, yet the dissent by the Court&amp;#8217;s four liberals speaks volumes. How could other rights in the Bill of Rights be good against the states, but not this right? Given the quality of their argument, the conclusion that the Court&amp;#8217;s liberals are picking and choosing their rights on political grounds is inescapable.
And that issue will arise in the Kagan he...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3706655</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:37:19 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3706655</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>George Will Has Questions for Elena Kagan</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3699480&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FdnNZrGYnv_4%2F</link>
            <description>By Tim LynchGeorge Will has some excellent questions for Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. 
Here&amp;#8217;s an excerpt:
• The government having decided that Chrysler&amp;#8217;s survival is an urgent national necessity, could it decide that Cash for Clunkers is too indirect a subsidy and instead mandate that people buy Chrysler products?
• If Congress concludes that ignorance has a substantial impact on interstate commerce, can it constitutionally require students to do three hours of homework nightly? If not, why not?
• Can you name a human endeavor that Congress cannot regulate on the pretense that the endeavor affects interstate commerce? If courts reflexively defer to that congressional pretense, in what sense do we have limited government?
• In Federalist 45, James Madison said: &amp;#...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3699480</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:30:33 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3699480</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>FLASH: Liberal White House Nominates Liberal Judge!</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3641008&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F3JIuoBWqLOU%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroFrom the first round of Clinton Library documents regarding Elena Kagan’s White House service, we can now all be shocked – shocked! – that President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee is a liberal.  It’s a mystery why the punditocracy thought someone who despaired at Ronald Reagan’s election, staffed the Michael Dukakis campaign, clerked for Thurgood Marshall, and advised Bill Clinton would be anything else.  But this is what passes for news in Washington these days.
We already knew that the solicitor general was a genial but cautious careerist, rarely expressing her own opinions but forever strategizing over the next rung on the ladder that would take her to her high school dream of sitting on the Supreme Court.  And we knew that she was a moderate legal academic ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3641008</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 16:22:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3641008</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Update on the Legal Challenges to Obamacare</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3585591&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FlP50jE4h0DI%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroSince I first issued my challenge to debate &amp;#8220;anyone anytime anywhere&amp;#8221; on the (un)constitutionality of Obamacare, a lot has happened.  For one thing, Randy Barnett and Richard Epstein, among many others, have published provoctive articles looking at issues beyond the Commerce Clause justification for the individual mandate &amp;#8212; such as the argument that Congress&amp;#8217;s tax power justifies the mandate penalty and that the new Medicaid arrangement amounts to a coercive federal-state bargain.  (Look for to a longish article from yours truly due to come out in next month&amp;#8217;s issue of Health Affairs.)  For another, as Michael Cannon noted, seven more states &amp;#8212; plus the National Federation of Independent Business and two individuals &amp;#8211; have joined ...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3585591</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 21 May 2010 00:33:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3585591</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Elena Kagan, Super Tuesday, Tea Parties, Guns</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3581591&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FyrFMb31yafw%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroJust as Tuesday&amp;#8217;s primary elections were good news for libertarians, they were bad news for Elena Kagan.  Now that Arlen Specter (D-R-D-PA) will never again face an electorate, we will be able to see his true colors, whatever they are &amp;#8211; this should be interesting! &amp;#8212; on the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), assuming she wins her June 8 primary run-off (having to tack left to do so), will be a possible vote against Kagan so she can show skeptical Arkansans that she&amp;#8217;s not an Obama-Reid-Pelosi rubber stamp.  And Rand Paul&amp;#8217;s trouncing of establishment candidate Trey Grayson in the Republican primary should strike fear into the hearts of all senators running for re-election this fall (or even 2012) such that they refuse to...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3581591</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 12:42:30 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3581591</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Kagan Nomination, Day 8</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3573670&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fz-2fo7NlFFg%2F</link>
            <description>By Walter OlsonAs you know from reading Roger&amp;#8217;s and Ilya&amp;#8217;s posts, this has been a pretty dreadful news day for libertarians at the U.S. Supreme Court. (And we haven&amp;#8217;t even gotten into Justice Kennedy&amp;#8217;s use of supposed international consensus in devising new Constitutional standards on excessive sentencing, despite a Cato amicus brief [pdf] urging the contrary). For whatever comfort it provides, which may not be much, here&amp;#8217;s more reporting and speculation on the often hard-to-pin-down views of the newest nominee:

Her participation in Clinton Administration gun-control initiatives doesn&amp;#8217;t (to put it mildly) suggest an expansive view of individual rights under the Second Amendment [Brian Darling via David Kopel]
On Kelo and eminent domain, will she share J...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3573670</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2010 19:27:51 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3573670</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Ask Kagan about ObamaCare</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3563950&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F1sodhiyl8es%2F</link>
            <description>By Michael F. CannonSenate Judiciary Committee members should be sure to ask Solicitor General and Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, during her upcoming confirmation hearings, whether she or her office played any part in crafting ObamaCare or the administration&amp;#8217;s defense to the lawsuits challenging that law.  If Kagan helped to craft either, that would present a conflict of interest: when those lawsuits reach the Supreme Court, she would be sitting in judgment over a case in which she had already taken sides.
Though the Solicitor General deals with appellate matters, it is certainly possible that Kagan was consulted during the drafting of the law or the administration&amp;#8217;s legal strategy for defending it.
The Senate Democrats who drafted ObamaCare took pains to protect it from...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3563950</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 16:57:15 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3563950</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Did Kagan Have a “Disparate Impact” on Military Recruiters?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3560206&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F5jQoynjh6zg%2F</link>
            <description>By Julian SanchezPerhaps you remember the case of Ricci v. DiStefano, so much discussed during Sonia Sotomayor&amp;#8217;s confirmation process?   To recap briefly: The city of New Haven had used a written test to determine which of its local firefighters would be considered for promotions. When the tests came back, it turned out that the high scorers were overwhelmingly Caucasian, and so the city—fearing a lawsuit from black and Latino firefighters who hadn&amp;#8217;t made the cut—scrapped the results. Not, mind you, because the test was in any way discriminatory on its face, but because federal law frowns on any test that has a &amp;#8220;disparate impact&amp;#8221; on minority groups unless it can be shown to be both closely related to the requirements of the job and less uneven in its effects th...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3560206</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 13 May 2010 14:17:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3560206</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>President Obama's Supreme Court Nominee Elena Kagan on &quot;Don't Ask, Don't Tell&quot;</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3560190&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36050&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fblisstree.com%2Flive%2Fpresident-obamas-supreme-court-nominee-elena-kagan-on-dont-ask-dont-tell%2F</link>
            <description>photo: Wenn.com
With President Obama&amp;#8217;s recent nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, conservatives are busy trying to find some dirt on Kagan that will sully the nomination. The best (or worst, I guess) they can come up with are Kagan&amp;#8217;s days as the dean of Harvard Law School. In 2004, Kagan kicked Pentagon recruiters off of campus because of the &amp;#8220;Don&amp;#8217;t Ask, Don&amp;#8217;t Tell&amp;#8221; policy that prohibits openly gay citizens to enter the armed forces. After the government threatened to pull federal funding from Harvard, Kagan repealed her ban.
The Defense Authorization bill is going though the Senate and the House Armed Services Committees, and The Services Members Legal Defense Network (SLDN) is urging President Obama to include a repeal of &amp;#8220;Don&amp;#8217;t...</description>
            <author>Breastfeeding 1-2-3</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3560190</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 21:34:17 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3560190</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Wednesday Links</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3556068&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FmkI2yEpfDsM%2F</link>
            <description>By Chris Moody
A few questions to ask Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.


How to treat a taxaholic. 


In England there are 4 million government security cameras, one for every 14 Britons. Are we headed in that direction?


The E.U.&amp;#8217;s aggressive bailout plan: An experiment in levitation?


Podcast:&amp;ldquo;Understanding &amp;#8216;Epistemic Closure&amp;rsquo;&amp;rdquo; featuring Julian Sanchez. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3556068</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 14:49:58 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3556068</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Estrada and Taylor on Kagan</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3556069&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FUlleBYNc0wc%2F</link>
            <description>By Mark MollerKagan gets an endorsement from superstar conservative appellate litigator and Bush II appellate nominee (also my old boss) Miguel Estrada here (see last paragraph).
Plus, Stuart Taylor says Kagan&amp;#8217;s nomination could mean a more conservative Court:
Commentators on the left . . . complain that Kagan never compiled much of a record of aggressively championing liberal causes during her years as a law professor. Some say she was too friendly as dean of Harvard Law School to conservatives and did not recruit as many women and minorities for the faculty as diversitycrats desired.
Speaking as a moderate independent, I like everything about Kagan that the left dislikes. To borrow from my friend Harvey Silverglate, a leading Boston lawyer who champions both civil liberties and a...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3556069</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 14:35:35 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3556069</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Kagan on Military Recruitment</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3556074&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FU_ija4EHXQU%2F</link>
            <description>By Mark MollerElena Kagan has been getting a lot of flak  from the right for her position on military recruitment at Harvard. While the military’s don’t ask don’t tell policy is unjust, Harvard’s position on recruitment was also misplaced—and, were the question ever presented to my faculty, I’d vote against barring the military from recruiting at my law school for the same reasons as Ilya Somin.
But, although Harvard made the wrong call on recruitment (albeit one that, in fairness, is not attributable just to Kagan, but, reportedly, to an overwhelming majority of the Harvard law faculty), Kagan’s opposition to the Solomon Amendment, which conditioned federal funding on JAG recruiters’ access to campus, has much to recommend it from a libertarian standpoint, for the rea...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3556074</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2010 12:34:37 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3556074</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Taking Judicial Matters Seriously</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3556079&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FlZLuJa4E-aM%2F</link>
            <description>By Roger PilonElena Kagan, with no judicial opinions and few legal writings, is the new &amp;#8220;stealth&amp;#8221; nominee for the Supreme Court. All the more reason senators should press her about the most important question before the country today: After ObamaCare, are there any longer any constitutional limits on government? For more, see my piece at Forbes.com. (Source: Cato-at-liberty)</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3556079</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 19:29:07 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3556079</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Kagan Nomination: Around the Web</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3552220&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FLVlPYQ_3Wxs%2F</link>
            <description>By Walter Olson
Confirmation hearings are a &amp;#8220;vapid and hollow charade&amp;#8221;, or at least that&amp;#8217;s what Elena Kagan wrote fifteen years ago. National Review Online invited me to contribute to a symposium on how Republican senators can keep the coming hearings from becoming such a charade, with results that can be found here.
The First Amendment has been among Kagan&amp;#8217;s leading scholarly interests, and yesterday in this space Ilya Shapiro raised interesting questions of whether she will make an strong guardian of free speech values. Eugene Volokh looks at her record and guesses that she might wind up adopting a middling position similar to that of Justice Ginsburg. As Radley Balko and Jacob Sullum have noted, the departing John Paul Stevens ran up at best a mixed record on Fir...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3552220</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2010 15:28:11 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3552220</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Elena Kagan’s Situation</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3549387&amp;cid=t_238534_109_f&amp;fid=36089&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fthesituationist.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F05%2F10%2Felena-kagans-situation%2F</link>
            <description>In today&amp;#8217;s New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Katharine Q. Seelye and Lisa W. Foderaro  have an illuminating biography of Supreme Court Nominee (and Situationist friend and supporter) Elena Kagan. Here are the opening paragraphs of that story.

* * *

She was a creature of Manhattan’s liberal, intellectual Upper West Side — a smart, witty girl who was bold enough at 13 to challenge her family’s rabbi over her bat mitzvah, cocky (or perhaps prescient) enough at 17 to pose for her high school yearbook in a judge’s robe with a gavel and a quotation from Felix Frankfurter, the Supreme Court justice, underneath.
She was the razor-sharp newspaper editor and history major at Princeton who examined American socialism, and the Supreme Court clerk for a legal giant, Thurgood Marshal...</description>
            <author>The Situationist</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3549387</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 15:43:30 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3549387</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Kagan: Revenge of the Grinds</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3549289&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F87YbYpSMbzs%2F</link>
            <description>By Walter OlsonI’ve been saying for a while that to understand the Obama administration specifically and much of today’s liberal Left more broadly, you need to conceive of it as a sort of extension of the intellectual and policy culture of high-end legal academia. The nomination of Elena Kagan, best known as a successful Harvard law dean, extends this familiar pattern. Assuming Kagan coasts to an easy confirmation, she’ll join a liberal caucus on the Court that more than ever resembles a faculty meeting. 
To the dismay of some on the left, Kagan, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor before her, counts as a “cautious and confirmable” pick &amp;#8212; a reliable liberal vote, almost certainly, but not particularly known for disturbingly big ideas or impassioned...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3549289</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 14:37:44 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3549289</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Kagan Nomination Launches Constitutional Debate</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3549294&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fz3HD0yxpKbM%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroAs expected, and despite an exhaustive review of shortlist candidates, dead-end leaks about Hillary Clinton, and other distractions, President Obama settled on the long-time prohibitive favorite to be his next Supreme Court nominee.  Elena Kagan became the justice-in-waiting the moment Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed, so you didn’t have to be Tom Goldstein to have predicted this.  The president wanted a highly credentialed non-judge who would serve for a long time and wouldn’t cost too much political capital.  He got a 50-year-old solicitor general and former dean of Harvard Law School – the first female in each post – whose record the Senate (and media, and activists) already examined in a confirmation process that put her into her current post.  That her appointm...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3549294</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 10 May 2010 11:42:53 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3549294</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Court Ruling Is About Free Speech, Not Animal Cruelty</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3487035&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2F6aPUFQFeJbg%2F</link>
            <description>By Ilya ShapiroAs expected from the oral argument in U.S. v. Stevens last fall &amp;#8211; when Justice Alito was alone in expressing some support for the government&amp;#8217;s position &amp;#8211; the Court on Tuesday upheld the First Amendment by declining to add a category of unprotected speech. This was not, after all, a case about the &amp;#8220;human sacrifice channel&amp;#8221; or Michael Vick&amp;#8217;s greatest dog fights. Indeed, cruelty to animals should be and is punished everywhere in the country. Instead, at issue here was a broadly drawn &amp;#8220;depiction of animal cruelty&amp;#8221; statute that could have ensnared Spanish tourism brochures or hunting instructional videos. More fundamentally, the Court rightly rejected the government&amp;#8217;s proposed weighing of the &amp;#8220;value&amp;#8221; of speech agai...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3487035</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:25:51 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3487035</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>‘We Don’t Put Our First Amendment Rights In the Hands of FEC Bureaucrats’</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2782012&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FH6_9KADeCQ4%2F</link>
            <description>I (and several colleagues) have blogged before about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the latest campaign finance case, which was argued this morning at the Supreme Court.  The case is about much more than whether a corporation can release a movie about a political candidate during an election campaign.  Indeed, it goes to the very heart of the First Amendment, which was specifically created to protect political speech—the kind most in danger of being censored by politicians looking to limit the appeal of threatening candidates and ideas.
After all, hard-hitting political speech is something the First Amendment&amp;#8217;s authors experienced firsthand.  They knew very well what they were doing in choosing free and vigorous debate over government-filtered pablum.  Moreove...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2782012</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:15:01 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2782012</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Responses to My Comments About Sotomayor</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2447457&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fz5X2Y1mmoaI%2F</link>
            <description>As might be expected, I have received much email responding to my CNN.com commentary about Obama&amp;#8217;s Supreme Court pick. Some of it has been favorable, some less so (and some simply incoherent). One particular email covered most if not all concerns &amp;#8212; and quite thoughtfully at that &amp;#8212; so I thought I would share this exchange with a reader who emailed me his comments:
I read  your piece &amp;#8220;Sotomayor Pick Not Based on Merit&amp;#8221;, where you write, &amp;#8220;in over 10 years on the Second Circuit, she has not issued any important decisions&amp;#8221;.
Granted that I&amp;#8217;m a layman, not a legal scholar or anything - this list seems quite impressive, and, as a whole, pretty non-ideological.
In reviewing this list, I found myself disagreeing with her here and there, but I couldn&amp;#...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2447457</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:19:04 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2447457</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Handicapping the Justicial Horserace</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2405039&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FsrV6gqPFfCk%2F</link>
            <description>The increase in chatter in Washington about Justice Souter’s replacement is a clear signal  that pundits have gotten about as much mileage as they can over speculation and want to have an actual nominee to dissect.
Even though the administration has been evaluating candidates since the inauguration (and before), there’s no real reason for President Obama to announce a replacement before the Court’s term ends in late June.
The only limiting factor is that the president needs to have a new justice in place by the time the Court resumes hearing cases in October. So, clearly, this politically savvy president will be weighing his legislative priorities against the relative amount of political capital he’ll have to spend to confirm possible nominees. Similarly, Republicans seem to be ke...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2405039</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 13 May 2009 14:53:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2405039</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Who Will Replace Justice Souter?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2382264&amp;cid=t_238534_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2FVEzRvwRTkmQ%2F</link>
            <description>You could call it the end of an error.  David Souter, the &amp;#8220;stealth justice&amp;#8221; who George H. W. Bush nominated mainly to avoid a confirmation battle and who so disappointed conservatives, is finally free to leave a city he never took to and return to his native New Hampshire. 
Little more can be said about Justice Souter. He has always been inscrutable, at first leaning right, shifting toward the middle in the landmark 1992 cases of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (abortion) and Lee v. Weisman (prayer at high school graduation), and ending up at the left end of the Court alongside Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer &amp;#8212; all the while employing an unpredictable jurisprudential method.  And he has always been reclusive, refusing reporters&amp;#8217; and scholars&amp;#8217; interview r...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2382264</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 01 May 2009 11:47:14 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2382264</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

