Keys to Writing a Clear Opinion: Yesterday, at Dorf on Law, Michale Dorf posted some thoughts on what thinks merits "Supreme Style" - or what has made some Supreme Court Justices some of "the best writers to have served..." Dorf writes that Justices John Marshall, Joseph Story, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Louis Brandeis, Robert Jackson, and Antonin Scalia were all great writers because they could "lay out their arguments in clear forceful language and [had] some gift for turning a catchy phrase." Dorf gives Justice Scalia "high marks for writing consistently interesting and clear opinions," but awards the gold medal for the best turn of phrase to Chief Justice Roberts who wrote in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race."
The "Torture Memos" and John Yoo: At Legalities, Jan Crawford Greenburg reports that despite recent calls for state bars to discipline the authors of the "torture memos," it "appears John Yoo cannot be disciplined or disbarred for writing those memos, even if the Office of Professional Responsibility [OPR] says it has evidence he should be." Apparently, because OPR waited five years to release its investigation results, the statute of limitations has run for the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board to investigate charges against him. (Yoo is admitted in Pennsylvania, and the statute of limitations is 4 years). Crawford reports that discipline could be taken against Bybee. Bybee is admitted in Nevada and D.C., but it would be "strange" to discipline Bybee when he only made a few edits and signed Yoo's legal work. To top it all off, Crawford reports that even if an investigation were to take place "[t]he bar for disciplinary action is incredibly high." Current bar standards will make it incredibly hard for any state board to find an ethical violation.
City Makes Threats and Property Owners Consider Giving Up Vote: Hat tip to Ilya Somin at Volokh Conspiracy for linking to Timothy Sandefur's post on an eminent domain case Sandefur is arguing in the Ninth Circuit today. Sandefur is arguing for the property owners in the case of Griswold v. City of Carlsbad. The case addresses the city's ability to take away a property owner's right to vote on city "assessment fees" if the property owner could not afford the fee. The California Constitution gives property owners the right to vote on these fees "for any proposed new or increased assessment before it could be levied." The city of Carlsbad, however, had decided to charge the fee up-front, and if the owner can't afford it, then the owner must waive his right to vote on the assessment. It will be interesting to see how the Ninth Circuit decides this one. For those that are curious, the Pacific Legal Foundation provides more information on the case on its "media backgrounder."
The "Torture Memos" and John Yoo: At Legalities, Jan Crawford Greenburg reports that despite recent calls for state bars to discipline the authors of the "torture memos," it "appears John Yoo cannot be disciplined or disbarred for writing those memos, even if the Office of Professional Responsibility [OPR] says it has evidence he should be." Apparently, because OPR waited five years to release its investigation results, the statute of limitations has run for the Pennsylvania Disciplinary Board to investigate charges against him. (Yoo is admitted in Pennsylvania, and the statute of limitations is 4 years). Crawford reports that discipline could be taken against Bybee. Bybee is admitted in Nevada and D.C., but it would be "strange" to discipline Bybee when he only made a few edits and signed Yoo's legal work. To top it all off, Crawford reports that even if an investigation were to take place "[t]he bar for disciplinary action is incredibly high." Current bar standards will make it incredibly hard for any state board to find an ethical violation.
City Makes Threats and Property Owners Consider Giving Up Vote: Hat tip to Ilya Somin at Volokh Conspiracy for linking to Timothy Sandefur's post on an eminent domain case Sandefur is arguing in the Ninth Circuit today. Sandefur is arguing for the property owners in the case of Griswold v. City of Carlsbad. The case addresses the city's ability to take away a property owner's right to vote on city "assessment fees" if the property owner could not afford the fee. The California Constitution gives property owners the right to vote on these fees "for any proposed new or increased assessment before it could be levied." The city of Carlsbad, however, had decided to charge the fee up-front, and if the owner can't afford it, then the owner must waive his right to vote on the assessment. It will be interesting to see how the Ninth Circuit decides this one. For those that are curious, the Pacific Legal Foundation provides more information on the case on its "media backgrounder."
Leave a comment