0

ROUNDUP Law and Humanities 03. 03. 2015

Douglas Coulson, Assistant Professor of English at Carnegie-Mellon, is publishing a new blog in the area of law and the humanities: Nostrum remedium. Its tagline is “Miscellany on law, narrative, art, and memory.” Professor Coulson is particularly interested in legal rhetoric; his website provides links to a nice bibliography here and weblinks here.

A couple of interesting conferences are coming up this year. First:

An International Conference on Legal Argumentation and the Rule of Law is set for June 25 and 26, 2015 at the Erasmus School of Law, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Keynote speakers are Jacco Bomhoff, London School of Economics, Damiano Canale and Giovanni Tuzet, University of Bocconi, Milan, and Matthias Klatt, University of Hamburg.  More information at the website here.

 

Read More

5

The Arizona Redistricting Case

The press reports of today’s oral argument suggest that the Court will find the Arizona state constitutional amendment unconstitutional.  The Justices evidently think that the state legislature does have standing and that the federal statute governing redistricting does not authorize what Arizona has done.  (I think the statute does authorize the plan.)  On the constitutional issue, as I said in prior posts, I am inclined to agree that this is unconstitutional, though I find the issue challenging and took a long time to settle on a position.

0

Warren Buffett & Charlie Munger Annotated by Experts in Wall Street Journal

WB1996Warren Buffett’s latest letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders is annotated in The Wall Street Journal by 30 professors, authors, and investors.  Editors Erik Holm and Anupreeta Das assigned us each two sentences in the letter, and/or Charlie Munger’s addendum, to amplify.  Here are my two, followed by the list of contributors. Mine address the role Warren’s son Howard will play in succession and what Munger believes concerning what made Berkshire succeed.

Regarding Buffett’s reference to his son Howard (p. 36):   Buffett tries again to defend the choice of Howard to succeed him as board chairman. Many remain skeptical. But critics should appreciate the plan’s savviness. It deftly carves a niche for the son of a legend, as Howard will: (1) not be asked to perform any task his father has performed (like investing or capital allocation) and (2) be asked to perform only one task, which Warren has never performed (monitoring the CEO for adherence to Berkshire culture and dismissing any who fail). This shrewdly avoids the trap many children of legendary parents face of never being able to measure up.

Notably, besides Munger, Howard is the only individual Buffett identifies by name among Berkshire personnel in his anniversary message and, besides Buffett, Munger only names Abel and Jain. In fact, while Munger and Buffett mutually credit the other for minting the Berkshire model, they never credit any other Berkshire personnel for its success. The omission contrasts with Buffett’s letters, which rightly herald specific executives who power Berkshire and animate its culture. The difference is that these messages, while in form historical, are really about the future, and all three people identified by name are referenced in discussions of succession.

Where Munger asserts (p. 39) that “The management system and policies of Berkshire . . . were fixed early”:   Munger’s statements about how Berkshire’s “system and policies” were “fixed early” is vague. In one sense, it sounds as if they were part of a master plan at the outset back in the 1960s.  But Buffett has often stressed that Berkshire never had a strategic plan nor any business plan. And through the 1980s, most of Berkshire’s “business” consisted of investments in securities for its insurance companies, not wholly owned operating subsidiaries. So it doesn’t seem likely that, in the 1970s or even as late as the 1980s, Buffett’s goal was to create “a diffuse conglomerate.”

On the other hand, Munger subsequently clarifies (p. 40) that Buffett “stumbled into some benefits [of these policies] through practice evolution” over his career. And Buffett sculpted much of Berkshire’s culture late in the company’s life as part of a process that is still ongoing and extends well beyond these policies. Therefore these passages should not obscure the fact that the “Berkshire system” looks sharper from today’s vantage point than from Buffett’s desk “early” on. That’s important to recognize lest observers commit errors associated with hindsight bias like believing that observed outcomes were predictable, a weakness of human psychology which Munger often lectures against.

Cunningham is the author of Berkshire Beyond Buffett: The Enduring Value of Values and editor and publisher, since 1997, of The Essays of Warren Buffett: Lessons for Corporate America. For more commentary on this topic, see today’s New York Times Dealbook column, here. Read More

0

FAN 49.2 (First Amendment News) Court denies cert in ballot initiative disclosure case

Earlier today the Court  released its orders from the February 27th Conference. There were no cert. grants, but the Justices did deny cert. in one case — ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8 v. Bowen. [HT: Rick Hasen]

Some opinions may be released next week.  

THE COURT’S 2014-15 FREE EXPRESSION DOCKET

Review Granted

  1. Elonis v. United States (argued on 12-1-14)
  2. Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar (argued 1-20-15)
  3. Reed v. Town of Gilbert (argued on 1-12-15)
  4. Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (license plate case) (to be argued 3-23-15)

Pending Petitions

  1. Berger v. American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina (license plate case)
  2. Thayer v. City of Worcester
  3. The Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of the City of New York (see Becket Fund amicus brief of Michael McConnell)
  4. Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District (re Mary Beth Tinker amicus brief)
  5. Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, et al.
  6. Apel v. United States (Erwin Chemerinsky, counsel of record)

Review Denied

  1. ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8 v. Bowen
  2. Kagan v. City of New Orleans
  3. Clayton v. Niska
  4. Pregnancy Care Center of New York v. City of New York 
  5. City of Indianapolis, Indiana v. Annex Books, Inc.
  6. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. United States 
  7. Mehanna v. United States
  8. Stop This Insanity Inc Employee Leadership Fund et al  v. Federal Election Commission
  9. Vermont Right to Life Committee, et al v. Sorrell
3

Why Do Peer Review?

poor-review-and-peer-review(Cross-posted at Prawfs, where I’m visiting this month.)

A recent post by Steve Bainbridge raises a nice issue: how should we think about peer review? Traditional peer-edited legal journals have established procedures (JELS pays honoraria and blinds; JLS pays but doesn’t; JLEO has fantastic peer comments, etc).But in the last five years, most of the top student-edited journals have moved to some kind of peer system – and many of us are now routinely asked, after a student-led process, to review for publication That peer review is never paid, and very often professors are asked to review for journals that have never accepted them. *cough. Yale Law Journal I love and hate you. cough*  That can frustrate even non-curmudgeons.  Why do it?

  1. For institutional credit. I’m aware of no school that gives formal credit for these student-edited peer reviews. Are you? If so, what does it look like?
  2. For Law Review credit. One explanation I’ve heard for doing a review for, say, Harvard Law Review, is to motivate them to feel  that they owe you at least a rejection on your own work, instead of a magnificent silence. In my experience, there’s some truth in this: doing peer review gives you the email of an AE, and credit with that person. I routinely have succeeded at being at least read by a journal I’d just done peer review with. I haven’t yet moved from a read to an acceptance.  But I did get a personalized email from HLR once.  It mentioned that they had an unusual number of great articles that cycle, which meant that they couldn’t publish even good work like mine.  I thought that was nifty! Of course, the credit isn’t  merely transactional: being a peer reviewer means you are an “expert” in the field, which should provide your article some kind of halo effect. Of course, this feeling is a quickly depreciating asset, and never rolls over from year-to-year. Use it or lose it!
  3. For the love of the game: For those of us who think that student journals should move exclusively to double-blind review, with faculty participation is a veto, participating is a price we should gladly pay. The problem is that the system isn’t perfectly constructed. Law journals should insist that peer comments will be conveyed to authors – this makes the comments much less likely to be petty (“cite me!”) and more likely to be constructive.

Bainbridge argues against mixed peer review systems, but none of his objections strike me as particularly relevant if the process is “student-screen, peer-veto.” That is how I understand the system to work at SLR, YLJ and HLR. I don’t know about Chicago – I would’ve thought their selection involves a maximizing formula and ended with a number.

17

Last Pre-Argument Thoughts on King v. Burwell

I’ll have more to say after we see the transcript on Wednesday (evidently we will not get same-day audio of the argument), but beforehand I thought I’d offer some final pre-game observations.

1.  We’ll see if any of the Justices ask about standing.  Thus far, there is no sign that any are interested.

2.  To me, the problem in the case is that neither side’s story is compelling.  Petitioners are arguing that Congress intended that subsidies would be available only on state exchanges.  I think that is implausible.  Respondents are arguing that “established by the State” is ambiguous.  That is also not plausible.

Instead, I think what we have is a text that is unambiguous and erroneous.  What is the right response to that?  Some errors of this type (say, a typo that gives the wrong date) would not be followed.  Others would not be followed because of some sort of constitutional avoidance doctrine.  This case falls into neither of these categories.  You could say something like “if this was an error, then Congress must usually be held to the mistake to ensure better drafting in the future.” (The subtext here would be “Don’t use reconciliation to enact major legislation.”)  Or you could say, “if there is an error then it should be disregarded, but the burden is on those alleging that there is an error to prove that there is.”  Maybe the respondents cannot meet that burden here.  These are the right questions, though the answer is not so clear.

3.  I’ll be curious to see if the Justices focuses on remedial questions.  If you want to rule for petitioners, you may want to reassure the uncertain that such a decision will not blow up Obamacare.  Some states will create their own exchanges in response.  Others could (as I have suggested elsewhere) try just delegating their exchange responsibilities to the federal exchange.  The Court could delay the application of its order for, say, six months to avoid chaos when subsidies are terminated in many states.  If Kennedy and the Chief Justice ask a lot about this, then they would suggest to me that they will go against the Gov’t.

New Podcast: The Week in Health Law (TWIHL)

Nicolas Terry and I are starting a health law podcast, The Week in Health Law, and the first two episodes are posted here. We were honored to have Nicole Huberfeld on as our first guest. Check it out on iTunes, Stitcher, or your favorite podcast app.

Next week we’ll be talking with Abigail Moncrieff the day after King v. Burwell oral arguments. Later guests this month include Lindsay F. Wiley (on wellness programs) and Erin C. Fuse Brown (on health costs).

6

Net Neutrality

Today the FCC voted to classify the Internet as a public utility and enforce net neutrality.  Kudos to Tim Wu (disclosure–I’ve known Tim for a long time).  Rarely has an academic had such a significant impact on public policy.  Congress may tinker with the regulatory framework in the coming years, but I suspect that the principle of net neutrality will remain a part of that framework.

1

Barbara Babcock reviews new book on Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Professor Barbara Babcock

Professor Barbara Babcock

Over at SCOTUSblog, Standford Law Professor Emerita Barbara Babcock has a book review of Scott Dodson’s new The Legacy of Ruth Bader GinsburgCambridge University Press, 2015 (336 pp., cloth, $29.99), which he edited.

Babcock’s review is titled “Law Professor, Feminist, and Jurist” and draws on some of her own history with RBG.

As you may recall, in an earlier post on this blog Danielle Citron also wrote about Justice Ginsburg and the collection of essays in the Dodson volume.

In case you missed it, take a look at Gail Collins’ recent column in the New York Times titled “The Unsinkable R.B.G.”

(In the interest of full disclosure, I also serve as the book editor for SCOTUSblog.)