Did you hear Republican Senator Pat Toomey’s recent weekly Republican radio address. He announced that “the economy has hit a wall.” Exactly. It hit a Republican wall. Everything our government has done to bring us out of recession for the last eighty years he and his fellow Republicans have said “no” to. Read the rest of this entry »
I should begin by making clear that many of the people involved in the dispute I’m about to discuss are graduates of Albany Law where I teach, including the Governor, the District Attorney and some of the Occupiers, and I know some of them, including the District Attorney.
In this dispute about the handling of the Occupy Albany movement, I have nothing but praise for David Soares, District Attorney for Albany County. Soares has refused to prosecute people for participating in Occupy Albany and making plain their objection to government policies and massive inequality. Clearly Soares has better things to do. Read the rest of this entry »
A bumper sticker said “I work so that someone on welfare doesn’t.” No, I work to support captains of finance who make costly problems for everybody else, threatening their jobs, their homes and the food on the table. What the titans of finance caused doesn’t compare with what little the rest of us can do to affect the economy. Read the rest of this entry »
Earlier today the Court heard arguments in United States v. Jones. For a solid month, the feds tracked Jones with the aid of a GPS device hidden on his car. And they got him. He dealt drugs. The feds figured it out and convicted him. Why should anybody care? GPS data can be very revealing. Shouldn’t we cheer? Read the rest of this entry »
I’m delighted that the Occupy Wall Street movement has shifted the discussion from the demands of those who want to accumulate ever larger shares of the wealth of America, leaving less and less to most Americans, to the vision of those who understand that the true wealth of America is in the welfare and the future of its people. It requires a degree of willpower to call your attention to something else. But there are a couple of cases being argued in the U.S. Supreme Court, one tomorrow and one next week, that deserve a word. So this week let me address the one tomorrow.
Perry v. New Hampshire will be argued tomorrow at 10. The question is whether the trial judge was required to pass on the reliability of eye witness identification before letting the testimony go to the jury. Read the rest of this entry »