Friday, January 10, 2003

Follow-ups on some things from yesterday:

1) The next article in the NYT's series on McWane, Inc.; and

2) On judicial nominations, a column from E.J. Dionne about the partisan aggressiveness of the President's nominations, and various articles on Atrios's site regarding Judge Pickering, articles that could convince a reasonable person to take a hard-nosed stand against his nomination on principle even though (as I posted yesterday) the practical consequences of his elevation would be relatively minor compared to the effects of many nominations.

3) On qui tam cases, Gary O'Connor of the Statutory Construction Zone (a very useful law blog) wrote to point out that qui tam cases have a very long pedigree, going back long enough to have warranted a discussion in Blackstone's Commentaries. (Go here and search for "qui tam" if you're interested). Much of what is decried today as lawyers-run-amok, in fact, is deeply rooted in centuries-old law; and very very old law can turn out to be useful in arguing cases, more often than many lawyers realize. Fortunately, Gary has links to Blackstone and other legal history sources on his site.

posted by sam 6:24 AM 0 comments

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

email: first name@last name dot net