Nov 28, 2011

More Epstein on Income Inequality



NYU's own Richard Epstein writes on income inequality.

The article, titled "Three Cheers for Income Inequality," argues that taxing the one percent more means less wealth and fewer jobs for the rest of us. 

You can find his article at the Hoover Institute:

Nov 8, 2011

Event Thursday: IJ's Bob McNamara on Judicial Engagement

This Thursday, we will be joined by Institute for Justice Staff Attorney and NYU Law alumnus Bob McNamara.  Mr. McNamara graduated from NYU in 2006 after serving as Editor-in-Chief of the NYU Journal of Law & Liberty.  After graduation, he joined the Institute for Justice (IJ) where he litigates cutting-edge constitutional cases protecting First Amendment, property rights, economic liberty and other individual liberties in both federal and state courts.

Mr. McNamara's speech is part of a series of lectures on judicial engagement being sponsored by IJ and promoted by the Federalist Society this year.   He will make the case that judges have a responsibility to actively enforce the Constitution instead of deferring to legislatures and administrative agencies.  More information on IJ's Center for Judicial Engagement can be found at the following links:

As always, plenty of food will be provided and there will be ample time for questions and comments.
What: IJ's Bob McNamara on Judicial Engagement
When: Thursday 11/10 @ 4pm
Where: VH 214

Nov 2, 2011

Event: The Seventh Annual Friedrich A. von Hayek Lecture with The Honorable Robert S. Smith

The Journal of Law and LIberty will be hosting Judge Robert S. Smith as this year's Friedrich A. von Hayek Lecturer.

Judge Smith will be introduced by Professor Richard A. Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law. The event will be held at the New York University School of Law, Vanderbilt Hall on Thursday, November 3, 2011 at 6:00 p.m.

Oct 31, 2011

Professor Epstein on Economic Inequality

Our own Professor Epstein went on PBS NewsHour to defend the positive aspects of economic inequality. Epstein eloquently argues that wealth inequality is a motivating force behind innovation and wealth creation.

Skip the first 54 seconds to go straight to the interview.

Watch Does U.S. Economic Inequality Have a Good Side? on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

Oct 13, 2011

Thursday Links

Room for agreement?

    Oct 12, 2011

    Event TODAY! Bob Inglis on Conservatives Against Climate Change


    Today, at 4pm, we will be privileged to host Mr. Bob Inglis.  Mr Inglis served in the U.S. House of Representatives where he represented South Carolina's 4th District from 1993-99 and from 2005-11.  He has not been afraid to differ with the GOPs on issues where he thinks the party is off base, and on Thursday he will be speaking on one of those areas: climate change.  Mr. Inglis is launching a conservative effort to address climate change, and he has written extensively on the subject in the past.  While many may decry the Republican party as "anti-science," Mr. Inglis shows that there is much less uniformity of opinion within the GOP than one might expect.

    You can read Mr. Inglis' writing on this topic here: Conservative Means Standing with Science on Climate 

    New York Times article on Mr. Inglis: Former Rep. Inglis to Launch Conservative Coalition to Address Climate Change
    What: Bob Inglis on Conservatives Against Climate Change?
    Where:
    VH 214
    When:
    Wednesday 10/12 @ 4pm
    As always, there will be plenty of time for questions and free food will be provided.

    What Separates the Tea Party from the Occupiers?

    Oct 10, 2011

    Monday Links

    Oct 9, 2011

    New Anthem for Occupy Wall Street!



    Full lyrics, courtesy of Reason:
    Come gather round people
    come and join your hands
    we're taking Wall Street
    and we're making demands
    and we're heeding the call
    and we're crying for help
    only 1% of us have wealth
    but first we need posters
    we need to make signs
    but to do so it seems
    that we need some supplies

    We need poster board
    I can't make it myself
    but it's 10 cents a sheet
    at the store it's on sale
    an example of economies of scale
    it's so evil
    They're saying that freedom
    has done little to stop
    Corporations from keeping
    the wealth at the top
    But at what point in history
    would a kid and a king
    both have clean water to drink?

    George Washington was
    the richest man of his age
    But he lost all his teeth
    at a very young age
    Because they didn't have Scope
    and they all crapped in trays
    we're not wealthy?

    now there's fountains on streets
    from which clean water pours
    Four dollar generics
    at all big box stores
    a sultan and student
    both have iPhone 4s
    it's not fair

    Come gather young people
    come on everyone
    and I'll tell you a tale
    of a fortunate son

    He's born in a country
    and given vaccine
    and rendered immune
    to all kinds of disease
    the Kardashians are on
    all his TVs
    it's not perfect

    Banks don't need bailouts
    on that we agree
    so let's start up a group
    and let's take to the streets
    because if we do that then
    you know what that means
    we're racist.

    Oct 7, 2011

    The Holdout Myth Underlying Current Takings Doctrine

    By Brandon Kressin

    In 2005, the Supreme Court decided Kelo v. City of New London, a landmark Fifth Amendment case that effectively grants the government license to seize private property for whatever purpose it deems in the public interest.[i]  Kelo involved a local redevelopment project in the city of New London, Connecticut.  The city wished to bulldoze a small neighborhood and hand the property over to private developers for commercial use.  The Court ruled that the economic growth that the city anticipated resulting from this conversion qualified as a “public use” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause.  Therefore, existing property owners such as Susette Kelo would be forced to give up their homes and accept court-determined compensation.
    Susette Kelo's House
    The scope of this eminent domain power has been highly controversial and the majority of states passed laws strengthening protections for private property rights in the wake of the decision.  But economic growth takings such as that which formed the basis for the Kelo dispute continue unabated.  Local governments in major states such as California and New York enjoy practically unfettered power to force private landowners to sell their homes to powerful developers at prices determined by courts.  These prices routinely undercompensate the small landowners, who receive nothing for their destroyed business goodwill or the subjective values they gain from living or working in the neighborhood from which they are uprooted.
    Much of the debate over current takings doctrine revolves around the meaning of the term “public use.”  Opponents of the Kelo decision argue that the original public meaning of the term requires a stricter test for permissible takings.  In her dissent in Kelo, Justice O’Connor argued that only economic takings that are necessary to abate a public nuisance such as blight should be permissible.  Justice Thomas’ dissent proposes an even stricter test that would overturn past precedent and require that the taken property be put under government ownership. 
    Proponents of the Court’s decision, on the other hand, argue that the Fifth Amendment’s use of the term “public use” requires application of a far more deferential standard by courts review legislative decisions.  William Treanor, for instance, surveys colonial and post-revolutionary governments’ use of takings in the eighteenth century and argues that the takings clause places few if any restrictions on the state’s ability to seize private property so long as compensation is paid.[ii]  While his account of the original understanding of the Fifth Amendment is disputed[iii], proponents of economic takings argue that the phrasing of the Amendment is at the very least ambiguous.  After all, the Amendment never even explicitly outlaws non-public use takings.  It merely requires that public use takings be compensated.  One could even go so far as to argue that by implication non-public use takings require no compensation (though no one has made that absurd argument as far as I can tell).  In the face of a vague constitutional standard, the argument goes, we should err on the side of allowing legislatures to act in the public’s interest.  Proponents of economic takings then point to the “holdout problem” boogeyman to argue that such takings are necessary from an efficiency perspective.
    The holdout justification for economic takings is based on the idea that it is very expensive to assemble small properties for conversion into large redevelopment projects.  The problem is compounded when existing property owners act strategically and “holdout” for higher prices than what they would normally accept to sell their property.  The holdouts behave in this way when they recognize that the developer has already sunk a great deal of cost into the project, meaning that they are loath to walk away.  Holdouts thus believe that they are in a strong position to extract the majority of the consumer surplus from any sale to the developer, so they hold out for high prices.  This narrows the bargaining window for voluntary transactions between the property owner and the developer and may result in many otherwise efficient transfers not taking place.  Eminent domain claims to solve for this holdout problem by forcing the property owner to transfer title to the developer in return for a court-determined price.
    Most legal discussions of eminent domain seem to assume the validity of the holdout justification without examining whether it is actually a problem in the first place.   But this ignores the fact that various free-market mechanisms exist and have been frequently used to avoid such holdout problems without state interference.  Land aggregation has been accomplished throughout our history, and continues to be accomplished today, without the intrusive and coercive use of eminent domain.  If such aggregation is possible, then perhaps we should err on the side of protecting the subjective values that private property owners put in their homes that are not reflected by market prices.
    The Citigroup Building
    One popular method of aggregating small parcels of land is secret purchases.  Large developers frequently employ agents and dummy companies to discretely purchase small parcels of land that will later be aggregated into one plot.  The property owners are thus not tempted to behave strategically and dramatically misrepresent their subjective valuation of their properties.  The land on which Disney World sits in Orlando was largely aggregated in this way, and a 1974 article by Peter Hellman in New York Magazine describes in detail how the land currently occupied by the Citigroup Center was put together.[iv]  The article describes the process as onerously long and expensive, but we must take note of the fact that the aggregation ultimately succeeded and Citibank built its tower.
    Another method of free-market land aggregation might be referred to as combinatorial auctions.  Bruce Benson describes this method in an article in the Independent Review.[v]  He introduces the subject by referencing a clever solution to the holdout problem suggested by Steven Landsburg.[vi]  Landsburg frames his solution in the context of Joseph Conrad’s novel Typhoon.  As Benson summarizes:
    A number of sailors stored their gold coins in personal boxes in the ship’s safe, but a sever storm caused the boxes to break open and mixed all of the coins together.  Everyone knows how many coins he had placed in the safe, but no one knew how many the others had placed there.  Therefore, everyone had an incentive to claim that he had put more coins in the safe than he actually had, and the captain’s problem was to determine how to divide the coins to give each sailor his actual savings.  Landsburg’s proposed solution: “Have each sailor write down the number of coins he is entitled to.  Collect the papers and distribute the coins.  [But] [a]nnounce in advance that if the numbers on the papers don’t add up to the correct total, you will throw all the coins overboard.”  This scheme clearly reduces and perhaps eliminates the incentive to hold out for more coins than the men had actually contributed.[vii]
    How would a developer apply this solution in the context of land aggregation?  The developer would inform the owners of the parcels of land that she is attempted to aggregate that she is interested in purchasing their land.  But, she must make it clear that she is only interested in either buying all of their parcels or none at all.  She would then ask the landowners to individually submit the minimum amount that they would be willing to accept to sell their land.  The landowners no longer have incentives to misrepresent their subjective valuations of their land, because if they do so then their combined offers might well exceed the amount that the developer is willing to pay.  Instead, the landowners are in the same position as they would be if they were engaged with a smaller purchaser.  They will offer to sell for a price that they believe makes them better off, but not one so high that it will scare the purchaser away.
    So, if combinatorial auctions are such a great solution to the holdout problem, then why don’t developers use them?  As Benson points out, they do.  He reports that several large firms that routinely engage in such land aggregations (such as Sears, Wal-Mart, Kmart, and Ford) successfully use combinatorial auctions to mitigate the holdout problem.  But, if you are a developer in a state like New York or California and you know that you can get the land through eminent domain at a bargain price, why bother?  The use of economic takings to redistribute private property to developers thus opens the door to inefficient and unfair property transfers.  It does so to solve for a holdout problem that turns out to be largely mythological.  Perhaps, in light of the vagueness of the “public use” phrasing in the Fifth Amendment, we should therefore err on the side of protecting property owners and leave land aggregation for the market to figure out.


    [i] Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005).
    [ii] William Michael Treanor, The Original Understanding of the Takings Clause and the Political Process, 95 Colum. L. Rev. 782 (1995).
    [iii] See, e.g., Nicole Stelle Garnett, “No Taking With A Touching?” Questions From an Armchair Originalist, 45 San Diego L. Rev. 761 (2008); Eric R. Claeys, Takings Regulations, and Natural Property Rights, 88 Cornell L. Rev. 1549 (2003); Andrew Gold, Regulatory Takings and Original Intent: The Direct, Physical Takings Thesis “Goes Too Far”, 49 Am. U. L. Rev. 181 (1999); Kris W. Kobach, The Origins of Regulatory Takings: Setting the Record Straight, 1996 Utah L. Rev. 1211 (1996); David A. Thomas, Finding More Pieces for the Takings Puzzle: How Correcting History Can Clarify Doctrine, 75 U. Colo. L. Rev. 497 (2004).
    [iv] Peter Hellman, How They Assembled the Most Expensive Block in New York’s History, N.Y. Mag., Feb. 25, 1974, at 30.
    [vi] Steven E. Landsburg, The Armchair Economist: Economics and Everyday Life (1993).
    [vii] 10 Independent Rev. at 171.

    Oct 6, 2011

    Occupy Wall Street! Update


    Union thugs beating pro-union hippies.  Ironic?

    Oct 5, 2011

    NYU Law’s Most Adorable Act of Civil Disobedience

    Which to choose?
    This afternoon (evening?), the law school community was rocked by a mass act of civil disobedience so bold and daring that the spirit of Henry David Thoreau briefly manifested itself in the Vanderbilt courtyard. As students stormed out of their classrooms to join the Wall Street Occupation!, professors shook their fists in rage and denounced the excesses of capitalism that had made such audacious disruptions necessary.

    Or at least, I imagine that they did. You see, I didn’t have class at 4:00 this afternoon when the walkout was scheduled. In fact, I don’t know anybody who did. To be fair, the 4:00 hour is scheduled as an S4 Block on Wednesdays. S4 Blocks are reserved for “Faculty Meetings & Adjuncts Only.” Still, I’m sure students could have defiantly walked out the library. If they made enough of a huff about it, somebody might have even noticed.

    Anyways, after walking out, the brave Occupiers! were summoned to the fountain at Washington Square Park. Now, as a radical anarcho-capitalist, I simply refuse to kowtow to the Man’s tyrannical enforcement of Daylight Savings Time. As such, I was about an hour late to the pre-march pow wow in the park, and by the time I had arrived the hippy brigade had been replaced by some grim looking sound and camera people filming a scene for C.S.I. New York (Fridays on CBS). Admittedly, I probably could have caught up with the Occupiers! down at City Hall, but I am deathly afraid of bedbugs, and rubbing shoulders with New York’s grungiest, unemployed-iest hippies seemed like a recipe for disaster.

    Pictured: A risk I'm not willing to take.

    So instead of reporting on the Wall Street Occupation! firsthand, I am unfortunately reduced to drawing from hearsay, blog posts, and my own impressive capacity for stereotyping and generalization. But that has never stopped me from loudly sharing my opinions in the past, and I’ll be damned if it’s going to stop me now!

    The Occupiers! (so I imagine) were drawn together by their shared outrage at the radical rightwing establishment currently occupying the White House (D), the Governor’s mansion (D), and the New York State Assembly (D) and Senate (R, actually. Who knew?). The Occupiers! blame America’s dire position on rampant capitalism. Of course, protesting capitalism in America is akin to protesting designated hitters in the NFL, but nevermind. The system, it would seem, has been bought and paid for by cigar-smoking, rotund, and probably bald Wall Street fat-cats. The only cure is a movement towards socialism. Because nothing does more to end cronyism and corruption in our political system than centralizing all economic decision making to a small caste of political elite.

    Quiz: Which curve represents the
    demand for labor?  Hint: Paul
    Krugman says "B".  It's not "B".
    The Occupy Wall Street! movement is a response to America’s continued economic malaise. The SEIU, Transit Workers Union, and United Federation of Teachers have joined the Occupiers! and proposed their own unique solutions to persistent unemployment. As is customary, these solutions undoubtedly involve the unions’ members being paid more to work less. After all, only a heartless social Darwinist would deny that increasing costs and slackening production are the keys to turning this economy around. Being empathetic and public-minded organizations, multiple NYU Law student groups have come forward to express their solidarity with the unions. This, of course, is because law students generally have a poor understanding of economics (see figure). After all, if we were good at making economic decisions we wouldn’t be paying $70k a year for law school.


    Pictured: The undeniable success of increased education
    expenditures.
    But the student groups hold a special place in their hearts for teachers’ unions. A special focus of the email calling for the walkout was the draconian statewide cuts to education spending. This was a nice touch. Who’s gonna come out against the chilluns? And nothing has proven to have as big an impact on bettering education as increasing teachers’ salaries. Perhaps I should rephrase: doing nothing has proven to have as big an impact on bettering education as increasing teachers’ salaries. But graphs and statistics are just tools of the bourgeois elite. They must be ignored. Throwing more money down the education hole just kinda sounds right, and it makes us feel good. That’s all that should matter.

    Finally, if there is anything that we can all agree on, it’s that the only surefire way to put the kibosh on Wall Street’s greed is to reelect Barack Obama (the recipient of record amounts of Wall Street contributions in the 2008 presidential election). Given the aims of the Wall Street Occupation! movement, Obama clearly deserves reelection given his administration’s remarkable immunity to the cronyism that has plagued America in the past (Solyndra, General Motors, labor unions, and countless other well-connected businesses aside).

    Oct 4, 2011

    Event Tomorrow! Ilya Somin & Rick Hills


    Prof. Ilya Somin
    Late tomorrow morning we will be having a very exciting event with Prof. Ilya Somin of GMU and our own Prof. Rick Hills.  You may be familiar with Prof. Somin's work on the popular Volokh Conspiracy blog.  His focus includes constitutional law, property law, and the study of popular political participation.  Prof. Somin will be discussing the Tea Party movement and its role as a popular constitutional movement.  He recently published an article on the subject in the Northwestern University Law Review Colloquy that you can access here.

    Prof. Rick Hills
    After the speech, NYU's Prof. Hills will provide commentary and critique.  Questions and debate will be welcomed, and we will have a wide assortment of breakfast foods available to get your day started.

    Whether you think of the Tea Party as a bunch of know-nothings or as the last best hope of our constitutional republic, this should be an exciting and informative event.  We look forward to seeing you there!

    What: Ilya Somin & Rick Hills discuss the Tea Party & popular constitutionalism
    When: Wednesday Oct. 5 @ 11am
    Where: Vanderbilt Hall 204

    Donuts, danishes, bagels, coffee etc. provided!!!!!!

    UPDATE: AND SANDWICHES!

    Sep 30, 2011

    Friday Links

    Sep 29, 2011

    Event Tomorrow: Patrick Garry on Federalism, the Tea Party, & the New Deal

    Tomorrow, we are lucky to be hosting Prof. Patrick Garry who will be speaking about federalism, limited government, and the Tea Party's revolt against the New Deal legacy.  Prof. Garry has written numerous books on politics and constitutional law including:
    Prof. Garry will be speaking for about 40 minutes which will leave plenty of time for questions (and debate).  The event is open to everyone, and cupcakes from Magnolia Bakery will be provided courtesy of the Federalist Society.  We will be in Vanderbilt Hall room 202 (right at the top of the stairs).  We look forward to seeing you there!

    What: Patrick Garry on Federalism, Limited Govt., and the Tea Party
    When: Tomorrow, 9/30 @ 11:00am
    Where: VH 202

    FREE CUPCAKES!

    Sep 28, 2011

    Wednesday Links

    Sep 26, 2011

    Monday Links

    Sep 23, 2011

    Prof. Epstein: Playing the Deathcard in the Healthcare Debate

    A Response to Jacob Weisberg
    By Richard Epstein

    In his recent post on Slate, the intrepid Jacob Weisberg eagerly plays the death card in order to excoriate Republican presidential nominees for their incoherent and cowardly opposition to ObamaCare in the latest primary debate. The hypothetical that we have to address is this:  what should be done with a person without insurance who suffers catastrophic illness, which requires six months of intensive care? Should that person be allowed to die or should that person be supplied that care at public expense under, of course, ObamaCare?

    One telling illustration about this example is that Weisberg does not tell us whether the individual who receives this care lives or dies when the treatment is over.  If we assume the latter, the initial question is whether intensive care at, say, $10,000 to $20,000 per day represents the best use of social resources.  A bit of simple arithmetic says that society has spent $1.83 million to $3.66 million on a venture that may well have kept this person alive in a comatose state or have subjected him to repeated invasive treatments when hospice care may well have been preferable. Alternatively, that person could have lived, but we do not know in what kind of state or how much money it will take to sustain him.  In this instance, we might derive somewhat greater benefits, but only at a far greater cost.

    The only alternative that is not covered by Weisberg's hypothetical is a case in which intervention is really cost effective: the use of a single day in the intensive care unit that results in keeping a person who suffers from a sudden injury alive so that he or she can return to a normal life thereafter.  The hard question therefore is why is it so apparent to Weisberg or anyone else, that letting a grievously ill person die is the wrong alternative for a society that is determined to make its health care dollars go as far as they want.  Weisberg never addresses this question in a coherent fashion because he is innocent of the notion that high levels of health care expenditures on one individual could exhaust resources that could have enabled many other individuals to survive.  It is just irresponsible to ignore the hard question of scarcity in asking how to set social priorities.

    The point has to be put in larger perspective.  The question here is not whether people who lack money should receive health care free of charge.  Of course they should.  But the issue is which people should receive that care, and why?  All of those hard issues are swept under the rug by acting as though nothing else will change if huge levels of resources are devoted to the first person that is carted into the emergency room.  So what kind of institutional arrangements can deal with this issue?

    One system that has already shown its defects is the 1986 EMTALA, or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, signed by President Reagan. That legislation requires hospitals at their own expense to take in patients that need emergency care or are in active labor, and treat them until stabilized.  Weisberg thinks that this statute is flawed, because these costs are not absorbed by hospitals but are passed on to consumers, employers and the government.

    In fact, the economics of EMTALA are far more complex.  In some instances, these costs cannot be passed on, so the hospitals that used to run emergency rooms shut them down, which put more people in peril.  Nor is the issue of whom absorbs the costs the only one that has to be faced.  There is the greater defect that EMTALA requires huge expenditures to be made for the wrong people, so that comatose individuals with little hope or revival, or chronic abusers get first call on social resources, which in turn are no longer available to others.  The simple point about EMTALA is that in its effort to solve the access problem, it aggravates the moral hazard issue, by encouraging reckless or dangerous behavior in individuals who know that they can have care as of right.  The result has not been pretty.  Many ERs have shut down because their hospitals cannot meet the costs.

    The provisions under ObamaCare will do nothing to address these difficulties.  The premiums that are paid under the mandate may prove to be insufficient to cover the whole cost of these operations.  The treatments in question may well be given to the wrong people for the wrong reason.  The socialization process that does not work under EMTALA will not work under ObamaCare.

    So what then is the solution?  Here it is worth while taking a bit of historical perspective.  The problem of taking care of very sick people did not arise in 1986.  It was with us as a nation throughout our history.  In the early days, there were very few people who were just left callously to die on streets.  Charitable hospitals did open up their doors to supply extensive care even in the days before government reimbursement and tax deductions.

    The key to their success was that they had the right to exclude people. That right was important not because they wanted certain patients to die, but because it allowed them to prioritize their care in the manner that they saw fit.  It allowed them, in a word, to decide that hopeless cases and chronic abusers do not receive the same amount of care as others, and perhaps no care at all.  Once they knew that they could use their resources as they saw fit, they could more effectively raise funds from private individuals who did not have to fear government appropriation of moneys through unwise programs.  No one says that this alternative is perfect.  But the greater the number of independent charities, the less likely it is that the failure of mission or purpose of any one of them will bring down the system.

    Jacob Weisberg writes as though he, a compassionate person, can put these silly Republicans to shame.  I have no desire to defend their statements, for they don’t seem any more sophisticated than he is.  But it is worth noting that his systematic ignorance of how to deal with scarce resources in end of life situations could have tragic consequences. Put his preferred regime into place and there will be more needless deaths than in a voluntary regime that relies on private compassion and good sense to achieve a result that no set of government mandated programs could hope to match.

    - Reproduced with permission from Ricochet

    Sep 21, 2011

    TODAY: FREE WINGS & BEER!!!!!!

    Yes, yes, this is another student group happy hour. Are they all blurring together? Well did any of those other ones have WINGS? Ya. That's what we thought.
    On Bleecker b/w McDougal & Sullivan
    Come have some beer and wings, and find out what the ultra-mysterious-sounding Federalist Society is about (besides writing on the chalkboards and giving away free pizza and cupcakes all the time)!

    What: Federalist Society Beginning of the Year Happy Hour
    When: Wednesday (today), 9/21 @ 6 pm
    Where: 1849 (Bleecker between Sullivan and MacDougal)

    Wednesday Links

    It's been awhile, I know.  But here are some links!

    Sep 16, 2011

    Friday Links

    At yesterday's "What is the Federalist Society?" event, Prof. Epstein recalled the long-running debate within the Society between those advocating "judicial restraint" and those calling for a more active judiciary.  Today's link is to a famous 1984 debate between Prof. Epstein and then Prof. Antonin Scalia on this very subject at the CATO Institute.

    Scalia v. Epstein: Two Views on Judicial Activism

    Sep 15, 2011

    EVENT TODAY! Epstein: What is the Federalist Society?

    Everything you wanted to know, but were too afraid to ask...
    What: What is the Federalist Society?
    When: Today, 9/15 @ 4PM
    Where: Vand. Hall 216
    Bonus: Subway Sandwich platters! Come early to pick your fave!

    Extra Bonus Epstein Footage:
     

    Thursday Links

      Sep 14, 2011

      Upcoming Event: Richard Epstein - What is the Federalist Society?

      After a very successful first event of the year with Prof. Brian Fitzpatrick, we will be having another event this Thursday to introduce students to the Federalist Society.  Our own Prof. Richard Epstein will be giving his talk "What is the Federalist Society?"  Prof. Epstein will talk about the goals of the Society, its history and role in the law community, and share some of his own opinions about current events.  This is always one of the most exciting events of the year, and you are encouraged to bring anyone who has ever been even slightly interested in attending a Fed-Soc event.

      This is a great opportunity to interact with one of NYU's most prominent scholars, and, as always, free food will be provided (make suggestions in the comments).
      What: What is the Federalist Society?
      When: Thursday 9/15 @ 4PM
      Where: Vand. Hall 216
      Prof. Epstein's latest articles:

      Wednesday Links

      Sep 13, 2011

      Tuesday Links

      Drug warrior

      Sep 12, 2011

      Upcoming Event: Preview of Sup. Ct's 2011-12 Term

      Prof. Brian Fitzpatrick
      On Tuesday September 13, we will be holding our first event of the Fall semester!  Join us and Prof. Brian Fitzpatrick of Vanderbilt who will be previewing the upcoming Supreme Court term.  There will be many important cases decided in the 2011-12 term.  Prof. Fitzpatrick clerked for Justice Scalia and is will also share his insights on the Justice as he enters his twenty-fifth year on the Court.

      As always, free food will be provided!
      What: Preview of Supreme Court's 2011-12 Term
      When: Tuesday September 13 @ 4:00pm
      Where: Vanderbilt Hall 216

      Sep 9, 2011

      Friday Links

      Sorry for the late post, but that's what happens when you have an SBA Party and Packers victory on the same night (Go Pack!).  Anyway, here goes...
      A mustache that puts fear in the hearts of America's enemies
      Amb. John Bolton

      Sep 8, 2011

      Thursday Links

      Sep 7, 2011

      Wednesday Links

      Sep 6, 2011

      Tuesday Links

      Sep 2, 2011

      Friday Links

      Sep 1, 2011

      Thursday Links

      Aug 31, 2011

      Wednesday Links: Rebooted for the new semester!

      Good luck to everyone on their first day of class!  Here are some links to get you through some of the more boring lectures:

      Aug 4, 2011

      Thursday Reading: 2012, 10th Amendment, & more

      Aug 3, 2011

      Aug 2, 2011

      Tuesday Reading

      • Richard Epstein calls on the government to cut back on tax expenditures
        Defining Ideas: The Tax Expenditures Muddle
        Tax expenditures—such as ethanol subsidies—allow the government to spend money in disguise. There are trillions of dollars of such tax expenditures which are waiting to be canceled out—enough, in fact, to ease our deficit woes. 
      • NY Magazine profiles rivals Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman
        NY Mag: Running for Grown-Up

      Aug 1, 2011

      Monday Reading: Apocalypse averted(?) & more

      Jul 29, 2011

      Friday Reading: Raising the roof, economy in the gutter, & more

      Friday Funnies at Reason

      Jul 26, 2011

      Tuesday Reading: Epstein, the debt crisis, & more