Tuesday Morning Various
- John T. Edge was asked by the website Kevin’s Barbecue Joints to name his favorites. The ones I know– Payne’s and Cozy Corner in Memphis, B.E. Scott’s in Lexington, Tennessee, Craig’s in DeVall’s Bluff, Arkansas– are all on my short list of favorites, several are on my short list of places I want to try, and a few are new to me and sound quite interest.
- Speaking of barbecue, Eating Oxford notes the there’s a sign in Little Dooey’s window saying they’re closed for repairs. Does this mean they are going to fix their barbecue?
- There’s a fascinating piece on the Volkh blog– well, fascinating if you are interested in search and seizure issues in the computer era. The issue involves precautions that ought to be taken when computers are seized, and what needs to be done to prevent seizures from working like a dragnet, hauling in evidence of crimes other than the ones targeted by the showing of probable cause for the search. A related question is what preconditions– if any– the magistrate approving the seizure of computers should or could impose. Volkh contributor Orin Kerr has written a law journal article on the subject, and notes a Seattle case where the federal magistrate refused to allow a warrant unless specific precautions were taken, including a taint team.
- I find Dahlia Litwick’s piece on the argument yesterday in the Arizona election finance law case discouraging. The law creates a public finance system; if someone opts in, he gets a limited amount of money. If his opponent outspends him by a certain amount, he gets to spend more up to a point, up to three times the basic amount, limited by what the opponent says. A candidate who did not opt in is arguing that such a system has an impact on his free speech rights. She concludes: “You will never see more empathy on display on the right wing of the court than at the prospect of extremely well-financed candidates unable to pay enough to drown out their competitors. It’s enough to make you want to start a telethon. Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor both do their best to try to show that this law doesn’t in fact burden anyone’s free speech and that it was enacted to try to restore voter confidence in elections, a goal that is constitutionally permissible. But it’s clear that this will be a 5-4 reprise of Citizens United and that one more in a long line of campaign-finance restrictions is about to bite the dust.”
Comments are closed.