Hillary Clinton’s remarks to the Democratic National Convention didn’t match those of the exceptional orators who preceded her, but she’ll have significant advantages in the presidential debates this fall.
Check back Friday for another a.m. Spiel, complete with a Quick and Dirty Dissection of the fourth and final day of the Democratic National Convention.
Hillary Clinton's public lionizing of entrepreneurs appears to stand at odds with various policies she'd like to see adopted. Jared Meyer of the Manhattan Institute says the sharing economy stands to lose a great deal.
On June 6, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Ross v. Blake. While being moved to a prison’s segregation unit, Maryland inmate Shaidon Blake was assaulted by James Madigan, one of two guards moving him. Blake subsequently sued Madigan and fellow guard Michael Ross, alleging excessive force and failure to take protective action. A jury found Madigan liable, but Ross objected that Blake had failed to exhaust “such administrative remedies as are available” before filing suit, as required under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA). The district court agreed with Ross and dismissed the suit against him, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that “special circumstances” can excuse a failure to comply with administrative procedural requirements—particularly where the inmate reasonably, even though mistakenly, believed he had sufficiently exhausted his remedies. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Fourth Circuit and remanded the case. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, holding that the Fourth Circuit’s unwritten “special circumstances” exception was inconsistent with the text and history of the PLRA—though the Court left open on remand the question whether an administrative remedy was in fact “available” to Blake. Justice Kagan’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Alito, and Sotomayor. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed an opinion concurring in part.
On June 16, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons. Academic textbook publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (Wiley) owns the American copyright for textbooks and often assigns its rights to its foreign subsidiaries to publish, print, and sell its textbooks abroad. Supap Kirtsaeng, a Thai citizen who came to the United States in 1997 to study mathematics, asked friends and family in Thailand to buy the English-language versions of his textbooks in Thailand, where they were cheaper and mail them to him. Kirtsaeng would then sell these textbooks in America, reimburse his friends and family, and make a profit. -- In 2008, Wiley sued Kirtsaeng for copyright infringement. He ultimately prevailed before the U.S. Supreme Court on the question whether the “first sale” doctrine--under which the owner of a “lawfully made” copy can dispose of it without permission of the copyright owner--applies to copies of a copyrighted work lawfully made abroad. On remand, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that the “first sale” doctrine provided Kirstaeng with a complete defense to Wiley’s infringement claim. Kirtsaeng thereafter sought an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to Section 505 of the Copyright Act, which allows the award of fees to a prevailing party at the court’s discretion. The federal Courts of Appeals have applied several different standards in resolving such fee requests. Here, the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of attorneys’ fees to Kirtsaeng based on the district court’s view that Wiley had taken an “objectively reasonable” position in the underlying litigation. -- The U.S. Supreme Court again granted certiorari, to address the following question: What is the appropriate standard for awarding attorneys’ fees to a prevailing party under section 505 of the Copyright Act? -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Second Circuit and remanded the case. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, which held that (1) when deciding whether to award attorney's fees under the Copyright Act’s fee-shifting provision, a district court should give substantial weight to the objective reasonableness of the losing party's position, while still taking into account all other circumstances relevant to granting fees; and (2) while the Second Circuit properly calls for district courts to give "substantial weight" to the reasonableness of a losing party's litigating positions, its language at times suggests that a finding of reasonableness raises a presumption against granting fees, and that goes too far in cabining the district court's analysis. -- To discuss the case, we have Christopher M. Newman, who is Associate Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law.
“Keep Austin Weird.” The phrase is printed on T-shirts, bumper stickers, posters; it’s part of Austin’s national reputation. But, it seems that for every pocket of weird, there’s a new corporate chain from California moving in.
Joining me today is Tim O’Neil. Tim has a website called History for Atheists (find it here http://historyforatheists.blogspot.com/) But I thought religious people had a monopoly on biased and revisionist history? Well, if Tim is right, and he makes some pretty compelling arguments, then atheists are doing their share as well. Was Giordano Bruno really killed … Continue reading AS262: History for Atheists →
A Quick & Dirty Dissection of Day 3 of the Democratic National Convention, where heavy hitters lined up to vaunt the nominee President Obama called “the woman in the arena.”
On The Gist, Mike realizes he’s not the liberal he thought he was, and the film Tallulah shows you what a sympathetic child-snatcher looks like. The movie’s writer and director, Sian Heder, (who also writes for Orange Is The New Black) and starring actress Tammy Blanchard stop by to discuss (fictional) women with abandonment issues.
Check back for another a.m. Spiel offering a Quick and Dirty Dissection of Day 3 of the DNC.
We are joined by an attorney that specializes in finance law. He helps us understand the new Department of Labor rule about the need for investment advisors to be fiduciary.
Investing Skeptically: GOLD! Should you own gold???