Morning Docket: 02.08.08
* Some good news for Cadwalader: R. Ronald Hopkinson, former head of Latham & Watkins's private equity practice, joins CWT. [New York Law Journal]
* Hollywood writers' strike to end any day now, thanks to some deft behind-the-scenes maneuvering. Will they work this into a future episode of Entourage? [New York Times]
* The fabulous Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw (9th Cir.), who acknowledges she is a judicial diva (and a judicial hottie), benchslaps the IRS at oral argument. This ain't her first time at the rodeo! [New York Sun via How Appealing]
* Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee talk to the Hill. [New York Times]
* Merck to shell out $671 million to settle whistleblower suits. [Legal Intelligencer]
* The mother of all amicus briefs? Jan Crawford Greenburg reports that an amicus brief in the SCOTUS gun control case has been signed by 55 senators and 250 representatives -- "believed to be the most members of Congress to join together on a brief in modern history, said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison." [Legalities via How Appealing]
Comments
Signed by the most, and, I'm certain, actually read by the fewest.
Posted by: it's a collective right, dammit | February 8, 2008 10:23 AM
We all know what the second amendment says . . . but isn't this a little bit of a slap in the face to the families of victims of recent gun-related violence, such as the the VT shooting and the recent shootings (w/in the last week) in suburban St. Louis and Chicago?
Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 10:34 AM
So the majority of both houses of Congress believes that a statute -- one that it is within their power to change -- is unconstitutional. Rather than change the statute by normal means, they file an amicus brief? They should all be held in contempt.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 11:15 AM
yay CWT
Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 11:37 AM
11:15, why would Congress be changing a District of Columbia law? Next time you want to get snarky about how dumb others are you should get someone smarter to do it for you.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 12:10 PM
12:10 - You failed civics didn't you.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 12:22 PM
12:10, I am not sure whether you are questioning the prudence or authority of congressional intervention. It certainly has the authority. Congress has police power over the District of Columbia. It could rule directly, but it has chosen to establish the D.C. Council to handle the ordinary affairs. However, Congress retains the ability to change the results of the local legislature.
Posted by: 11:15 | February 8, 2008 12:23 PM
That was a really great interview on UTR -- good read.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 8, 2008 02:47 PM