Architectures of Control, the old fashioned way - Howard reports on a Sixth Circuit case that involves an Akron, Ohio ordinance that "requires everyone who wants to contribute to a political candidate to reveal his or her home address." You can access the Sixth Circuit's divided original three-judge panel ruling in this case here. Howard's comments can be accessed here. Does anyone remember how it works when the federal judges have to fill out their annual financial reporting forms, i.e. do they have to list their home address? I seem to remember they don't. At any rate, I agree with the dissenting judge's view that "requiring all contributors to disclose their home addresses is unnecessarily invasive."
5:16:12 PM
Happy Blog Birthday - to the Delaware Law Office blog (Larry Sullivan & William Slawski), which is an outstanding blog and a great resource of legal news about Delaware. Congratulations guys.
10:07:35 AM
Our Government @ work (rejecting judicial nominations) - "[A] consumer attorney from Texas told me that there is not a single consumer-rights attorney in the state who feels he'd get a fair shake in her courtroom." -- Dianne Feinstein on the rejection of Priscilla Owen for a seat on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Thanks to Alice W. at Who Stole the Tarts for picking up on this political embarrassment, and for her cogent comments (which I totally agree with):
"There are a lot of acceptable reasons to reject a nomination. A personal anecdote isn't one of them. Feinstein wouldn't base her vote on one, but to avoid such an appearance, she should probably learn the fine art of avoiding vapid remarks. It doesn't matter what wonderful things a public figure might say. In the end, journalists are bound to print the silliest one."
I would only add that Ms. Feinstein's making such comments demeans the vestigial judicial confirmation process. But it does confirm that the process is more about politics than evaluation of legal acumen.
9:59:10 AM
