Opera singer, blogger, lawyer. You can reach me by email at david [at] bluemassgroup [dot] com.

Person #2: 4137 Posts

Recommended: 526 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. What I'm talking about, basically, (0 Replies)

    is name-calling. IMHO it has no place in the Supreme Court, or really, pretty much anywhere else in public life. I absolutely am in favor of stating policy or political disagreements forcefully. In fact, if you read Scalia’s dissent in Morrison v. Olson, which I cited approvingly in my op-ed, you’ll see that he states a very strong case. He just doesn’t call anyone names, and he doesn’t use gratuitous insults.

  2. I can vouch (0 Replies)

    for how awful LaGuardia airport is as a facility, and also in terms of how difficult it is to get into Manhattan once you land. Logan, despite its flaws, is so much better. Good for NYC for committing to fixing it.

  3. Just making sure (1 Reply)

    that comments are working.

  4. Two reasons (1 Reply)

    (a) Bernie isn’t leading the polls – not even close, and
    (b) Bernie doesn’t insult people and otherwise say things that are outside the bounds of civil discourse.

  5. I'm not sure there's really an answer to this. (0 Replies)

    I assume (but of course can’t be sure) that most of them try to start with asking themselves which provision of the Constitution seems to be at issue, and how it has been applied in somewhat analogous situations in the past. But beyond that, I’m not sure it’s really possible to generalize.

  6. No. (0 Replies)

    Strict scrutiny is an entirely judge-made doctrine, and protected classes are determined by judges, not by legislation.

  7. Normally, I'd delete a comment like this (1 Reply)

    because it is a non-constructive personal attack. But I’m leaving this one up, in part because Fenway’s rejoinder is so obviously on point, and so obviously demolishes the “argument.” Cheers.

  8. If SC's governor had any guts, (1 Reply)

    she would take the damn thing down and wait for a lawsuit. But she won’t.

  9. Your health inspector hypothetical (0 Replies)

    is the most interesting one. But I think the answer to it is: not in a residents-only space. There are lots of other options: cabs, T, Uber, parking garages, bikes, parking in legal parking and walking a couple of blocks. Because it’s so easy to start teasing out hypotheticals where we can justifiably say, well obviously, that person should be allowed to park in a residents-only spot, and pretty soon the whole purpose of residential parking has been lost.

  10. The opinion, (0 Replies)

    which is linked in my post, explains in detail what constitutes a “money bill” for constitutional purposes.

  11. "because LA and DC, amongst others, were also putting forth competing bids" (3 Replies)

    That is not an adequate answer. As you perhaps had forgotten, Boston 2024 did not release any details of the bid until after the USOC announced that Boston was its choice. At that point, back in January, B2024 posted a (we now know heavily) redacted version of the bid on its website. But why did it do so? Why did it not post the whole thing at that point, since as of then the other American cities were no longer in the mix? If it had disclosed these details back in January, there still likely would have been a kerfuffle about TIF bonds and other details, but it would have happened months ago, before B2024 had already shot itself in the foot a number of times over other issues.

    I have never found the “competitive” argument convincing for keeping bid details secret. I certainly don’t in these circumstances.

  12. Gosh, you're right. (0 Replies)

    I guess I should’ve said “shit the bed,” as I was originally thinking. Sorry – my bad. ;)

  13. You hadn't. (0 Replies)

    And Olympics-only infrastructure might, or very well might not, be worth it to the city in the long run. It’s an entirely different kettle of fish from things like MBTA improvements.

  14. Actually, I think there's a lot of new stuff in there. (1 Reply)

    - the “infrastructure improvements” that had been discussed previously are things like upgrading the MBTA, which need to happen regardless of the Olympics. The revelation that “infrastructure improvements” surrounding an Olympics-only venue were also expected to be publicly financed is a major one, and pretty clearly contradicts what Boston 2024 has been saying for months.

    - Also, they were counting on the (taxpayer-funded) BCEC expansion, which they hadn’t previously revealed, and which now looks like it may well not happen.

  15. "If this wasn’t a case that called for a change of venue there is no such thing" (1 Reply)

    This is exactly the argument I’m most worried about in terms of appeals. I guess we’ll find out in a couple of years.

  16. I guess my question is... (2 Replies)

    if the ABCC hasn’t brought a single charge in 15 years, is a lack of funding really the major problem? Even if the ratio of agents to licensees is low, surely one agent in 15 years might have identified a problem, if the problem is indeed rampant?

  17. The "unanimous motion" requirement makes no sense. (0 Replies)

    The whole point of adjusting the rules for joint committees is to prevent legislation from being bottled up when a *majority* of the Senate wants to move it forward. Your proposal simply shifts the ability to bottle things up from the House to the Senate minority party (currently the GOP). Senator Rosenberg has already made a perfectly sensible reform proposal that keeps the joint committees intact. If DeLeo isn’t going to play ball, it seems pretty clear that the Senate will move forward with its own committee structure. I agree with you that that will entail some cost, but the cost of the current system is already far too high.

  18. "this really should have been Warren’s presidential announcement video." (1 Reply)

    That, of course, is exactly the point! :D

    Seriously, though, I think what’s really good about the video is how little it is about her. I can’t recall an announcement video from any other candidate taking a similar strategy, where the candidate doesn’t even appear until well into it. It’s a clever way of acknowledging both that she is a very well-known quantity who hardly needs any introduction, and also that she recognizes that her campaign needs to be about more than her desire to be president.