February 11, 2016 at 1:42 pm
Plenty of people on the center-right, including me, mocked Donald Trump when in a recent presidential debate Mr. Trump cited the liberal Harvard law professor (no, that isn't redundant) Laurence Tribe as his legal authority for the idea that Senator Cruz, born in Canada, may have trouble fulfilling the Constitution's requirement that a president be a natural born citizen of the United States.
My thought was that the reference to Mr. Tribe wouldn't exactly help Mr. Trump with his audience of Republican primary voters. But I may have spoken too soon, for, after this week's order from the Supreme Court blocking the Obama administration's unconstitutional crackdown on coal, Mr. Tribe may wind up as a hero in the conservative legal pantheon right up there with TGS (the editor of the New York Sun's term for "The Great Scalia"), Kenneth Starr, or Theodore Olson.
February 11, 2016 at 12:59 pm
Somehow I missed this last month, but what a great symbol of how unclear insider trading law is and how capricious the enforcement of it is: the news that the Securities and Exchange Commission is going to refund the $21.5 million that Level Global Investors paid as a settlement to the SEC after that firm was raided and shut down. The Second Circuit ruled that prosecutors were wrong to go after the firm and its personnel for behavior that was not illegal.
February 10, 2016 at 9:34 pm
Morton Kondracke has a Wall Street Journal article about Mike Bloomberg's presidential possibilities that makes some sound points:
February 10, 2016 at 8:47 am
The Federalist has published a piece I wrote arguing that, notwithstanding the critics, the Financial Times was actually the perfect place for Michael Bloomberg to talk about his presidential possibilities:
February 9, 2016 at 9:19 am
Our sister site SmarterTimes.com has coverage of a problematic New York Times column. The Times column claims "chances are slim that anyone connected to Wall Street has a prayer of securing a top post" in the next presidential administration.
February 8, 2016 at 9:38 pm
CNN does quote a few more skeptical voices toward the end of the article.
February 8, 2016 at 4:37 pm
Michael Bloomberg has an interview with the Financial Times about his consideration of a presidential run. He doesn't show much leg, but he keeps the story alive. If the electorate were FT readers, Mr. Bloomberg would probably win in a landslide. Says the former mayor of New York: "I find the level of discourse and discussion distressingly banal and an outrage and an insult to the voters."
February 8, 2016 at 4:31 pm
The debate in the presidential campaign over whether to privatize health care for veterans is a fine example of the ideological differences between Republicans and Democrats, I write in my column this week:
February 4, 2016 at 3:30 pm
Michael Bloomberg's pollster, Douglas Schoen, who also worked for President Clinton, has an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal laying out the reasoning for a Bloomberg presidential campaign:
February 4, 2016 at 10:45 am
Steve Forbes talked about time and money in an interview about his recent book Reviving America: How Repealing Obamacare, Replacing the Tax Code and Reforming The Fed will Restore Hope and Prosperity:
February 2, 2016 at 10:45 pm
"Sadistic" is the word that Barrington Parker, a judge who rides the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, used to describe the position by federal prosecutors in New York that money manager Doug Whitman should remain confined even as the Supreme Court hears a case that could clarify insider trading law in a way that overturns his conviction. Bloomberg (here) and Reuters (here) have the details.
The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, has gotten a lot of favorable press in New York City and nationally. But sadism is not a quality that is particularly attractive in an officer of the court, especially when the law being enforced is unclear enough to be the subject of a circuit split.
February 2, 2016 at 11:02 am
Ted Cruz's victory in the Iowa Republican caucus proves you can win that state while opposing ethanol subsidies. That's pretty good news. I'm not the first or only person to observe this, but it's a point worth mentioning, anyway.
February 2, 2016 at 9:35 am
February 1, 2016 at 9:29 pm
Item one: two New York Times editorials — "Monopolizing Beer," October 7, 2014, and "How Mergers Damage the Economy," October 31, 2015, contending that the government should use antitrust law to block anticompetitive consolidation in the beer industry that would hurt consumers.
Item two: a Super Bowl preview article on the front of the Times sports section headlined, "For Beer, Color of Competition: Red and White," about how "wine sales have been steadily growing faster than beer sales, especially around Super Bowl time, a reflection of the changing preferences of younger fans and an increase in women who watch the country's biggest sporting event."
February 1, 2016 at 1:52 pm
Subscribe to the Mailing List
Archives by Topic