Less Pissed Off … But Still!

June 29, 2014

Less pissed off I am! I understand—and will try to explain—the majority decision in McMullen v. Coakley; still, the decision troubles me.

The First Amendment provides, expressly, that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … .” (Not important, here, is the means by which the First Amendment applies to a law adopted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.) Political speech gets special protections, for the First Amendment was designed to protect it.

Time, place and manner restrictions are permissible. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in Schenck v. United States, stated what seems obvious:  “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing

Continue reading...

Inequality – Part 5

June 28, 2014

Second idea? How about a bit of strategic planning. When you Google the term this definition appears:

Strategic planning is an organization’s process of defining its strategy, or direction, and making decisions on allocating its resources to pursue this strategy. It may also extend to control mechanisms for guiding the implementation of the strategy.

So, and I mean this with respect, really, where the f*ck are we going as a nation? Does anybody know? Got a map?

Reduce the deficit, create more jobs, Mars by 2025 (I think that was just a one-off speech) … and that’s about it, pretty much. No set of goals, and no plans for getting there.

Part of the problem rests with inequality, and

Continue reading...

Pissed Off, and … Professionalism!

June 26, 2014

Prefatory comments:

Below, you will read the Friday post. But I’m pissed off, really, really, and almost postponed ”Heart of the Matter” to focus on McMullen v. Coakley, No. 12-1168. McMullen is the Supreme Court case that deals with 35-foot buffers from facilities which provide lawful abortions. The Court, in a unanimous decision, relied on pretty traditional First Amendment analysis to reach the conclusion that a state cannot limit the rights of strangers to get in the faces of women seeking a lawful procedure, so that the strangers can share literature and provide information about alternatives to abortion.

Only the attorney in me—the part that says “calm down, read the opinion, know what you’re talking about”—has kept me from

Continue reading...

Governors

June 25, 2014

This seems like a good time to bring up my disclaimer:  Mark Rubin Writes belongs to me, and not to the terrific law firm, Mesch, Clark & Rothschild, P.C., with which I am affiliated. Opinions are mine alone, and if they happen to be shared by anyone at my law firm, that is happenstance.

Why I am disclaiming? I’m using my space to commend two fine men who want the thankless job of running states in the United States of America. Many men and women are running for office in 2014. Many are fine people; some are not, and some are just plain awful. I’m writing about two men because, as it happens, I go back pretty far with

Continue reading...

The Wednesday Curator – 6/25/14

June 24, 2014

Wednesday. Curator duties are at hand, and I think I have some good stuff for you all. So good, in fact, that I’ve posted early, so that you’ll have Tuesday night enrich your mind.

First up, I ran across—where I don’t recall—The course of bigness by Andrei Cherny, published in the Spring 2007 issue of Democracy, the journal he started many years ago. Andrei is a friend, a terrific writer—you should really read The Candy Bombers:  The untold story of the Berlin airlift and America’s finest hour, one of my “best ever” books—and a nice guy. What he says in The Course of Bigness matters, he says it well, and he said it seven years ago!

Continue reading...

Court

June 24, 2014

The Supreme Court issued three opinions yesterday. Here’s SCOTUSblog’s Tuesday Round-Up, with a brief summary of each case, along with links to commentary.

The big news related to Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1146. The case involves the Clean Air Act and the EPA’s authority to regulate stationary sources of greenhouse gases. If I understand the decision correctly—a somewhat dubious proposition, and the major theme to this post—the EPA designed a regulatory scheme that amounted to a “less than allowed” amount of regulation, as adherence to the authority it was given would have created an unadministrable program. “No, no,” said Justice Antonin Scalia, the law neither permits nor compels such an outcome.

The day job calls,

Continue reading...

Communing with Nature! Really!!!

June 22, 2014

Ms. J—who tells me she might like to be Ophelia, or some other name, for Mark Rubin Writes—works for The Nature Conservancy. Great organization, and she loves her work!

Recently, she told me she needed to make visits to some of the TNC preserves in Arizona. “Would I come along,” she asked. “Sure,” I said slowly, for I’m a fine husband and a man who loves nature … seen through a window.

First stop? The Patagonia-Sonoita Creek Sanctuary.

DSCN0988

So off we go on a Sunday morning. Along the way we passed the 4th and Pennsylvania intersection in suburban Patagonia, which brought to mind the intersection of Pennsylvania Ave. and 4th St. in Washington, D.C., where I had been

Continue reading...

Recess (Appointments)

June 20, 2014

Article II, Section 2 states, in part:  “The President shall have the power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.” The power to make recess appointments has been relatively non-controversial for more than two centuries. Until now!

The recess appointment provision was included in the Constitution to allow the government to function during times when the Senate was not in session. Over the past two-plus centuries the process has evolved. Appointments are made when the Senate is out of session for the year, but also during “intra-session” periods, when the Senate leaves for a week or two. Further, the

Continue reading...

Getting There!

June 19, 2014

I’ve got two major themes on my mind. First, and this will come as no surprise to regular readers, I am very taken with the quality of the material on the Internet. I think we’re living in a “renaissance” era, especially when it comes to matters public. The Internet and related platforms offer much that devalues us in many ways, but for those who seek intelligent writing and discussions about the matters of the day, my, my, but there’s much to be proud of! (I do hope my bit of a contribution adds to the mix, but I’m really talking about the pros here.)

Within this mix there are greats, near greats, and plenty of material that, like Chinese food

Continue reading...

Machines v. Lawyers, Etc.

June 18, 2014

Winton Woods was my small section professor at the University of Arizona College of Law in 1978-9. Woody was a great teacher, and a delightful man (and he’s still delightful, after all of these years)! He also came early to tech stuff, leading the Courtroom of the Future effort at the law school in Tucson, and provided sound advice to an attorney—me—who started a solo practice more than 14 years ago.

Woody posted Machines v. Lawyers, by John McGinnis, written for City Journal. Depressing it was, mostly. Read it for yourself, and even if you’re not an attorney, the conclusions translate to most any other fields. (The article brought to mind Changing Times, the name for

Continue reading...