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

Person #2: 4027 Posts

Recommended: 466 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. Technically, that's not correct. (1 Reply)

    The “repeal” is not actually a full repeal of the 2011 gambling law – that’s just what it’s called because it’s easier than explaining the legal technicalities. What the ballot question would actually do is make table games and slot machines illegal again. In order to bring even a single casino to Springfield or anywhere else, that part of the ballot question would obviously have to be undone. Which would, indeed, repudiate the will of the voters.

  2. Yup (1 Reply)

    I was OK with it.

  3. Not to belabor the point, (1 Reply)

    but surely the question whether Massachusetts should have casinos is a matter of statewide, not purely local, concern.

  4. Citizens United? (0 Replies)

    This is Lesser spending his own campaign money, right? No Citizens United issue here, AFAIK.

  5. Yes and no (1 Reply)

    IMHO, although elections should be about someTHING, they are (at least at the presidential level) inevitably also about someONE. Yes, the message has to be right, but so does the messenger.

  6. That's right. However, (1 Reply)

    we don’t want posts on the site that don’t allow comments. So I’ve repaired the problem, which I suspect was unintentional.

  7. Unfortunately, Tom, (2 Replies)

    the way the US Attorney has gone about this may well have exactly the opposite effect you describe. If the jury indeed acquits everybody, why wouldn’t they wear that acquittal as a badge of honor – as a demonstration that they “did nothing wrong”? If I were in their shoes, that’s exactly what I would do. It would make it less likely that things will change, rather than more, IMHO.

  8. "let’s do an IP check." (0 Replies)

    Don’t worry about that stuff. We are well aware of it, and we have the tools to deal with it.

  9. A legislative commission has looked into some of these questions (1 Reply)

    - though, grain of salt alert, John Fish chaired the commission. I linked to the report in this post. Take a look and let us know what you think!

  10. This is a great question. (2 Replies)

    Does anyone know if Baker has yet said anything about Hobby Lobby? Anything at all?

  11. This is an interesting question (1 Reply)

    which, to my knowledge, was not raised in the case. I suppose the gov’t could have argued that, to whatever extent RFRA and the ACA are inconsistent, the ACA should be understood to have partially repealed RFRA to that extent. But I’m pretty sure there’s nothing explicit in the ACA that would suggest an intention to partially repeal RFRA in that way. In any event, nobody argued it, so it wasn’t part of the Court’s basis for deciding the case.

  12. As I explained in my front page post, (0 Replies)

    this case is not about the Constitution’s free exercise clause. And there is little doubt that, under that clause, Hobby Lobby’s claim would have failed.

  13. Basically, yes, (0 Replies)

    which is yet another of the case’s ironies. All of this could be avoided if everyone would just get behind single payer.

  14. ... including City of Boerne, (0 Replies)

    maybe the Court’s most important RFRA case before today.

  15. Interesting theory re Scalia ... (2 Replies)

    but what about Kennedy? He’s been on the Court almost as long as Scalia, he also didn’t write anything from the March sitting, and he’s anything but combative. And he’s written plenty of important religion cases.

  16. Good Lord, what a stupid analogy. (0 Replies)

    As soon as the government starts mandating euthanasia, get back to me. Until then, let’s try to maintain at least a small connection to reality.

  17. Moreso than Roberts, Scalia, or Kennedy? (1 Reply)

    That’s what I don’t get. Even on your view of the way things work up there, it’s really very odd that Alito wrote the opinion.