Non Sequiturs: 01.20.19

* Adam Feldman explores the possible effect on the Supreme Court of replacing Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a staunch conservative — e.g., Judge Amy Coney Barrett. [Empirical SCOTUS]

* Speaking of SCOTUS, here’s Ilya Somin’s read of the tea leaves in Knick v. Township of Scott, an important Takings Clause case.  [Volokh Conspiracy / Reason]

* Stephen Embry disagrees with Joe Patrice’s suggestion that junior lawyers are going extinct, but Embry acknowledges the major effect that technology is having, and will continue to have, on legal practice and employment. [TechLaw Crossroads]

* Charles Glasser looks at what might have caused the political polarization of the modern media and its consumers. [Daily Caller]

* The prospect of Michael Cohen testifying publicly before Congress is making some people giddy — but it’s not without its downsides, as Joel Cohen explains. [The Hill]

* What can we learn from official Washington utterances about the shutdown? Here’s some intel from VoxGov, via Jean O’Grady. [Dewey B Strategic]

* Not all provisions of the Bill of Rights are created equal, according to Gerard Magliocca. [PrawfsBlawg]

* David Berg draws lessons for trial lawyers from the genius of Joe Jamail’s use of hypothetical questions. [YouTube]
Non Sequiturs: 01.20.19 syndicated from http://delawaretruckinglawyer.tumblr.com/

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s