- Michael Carvin testimony defends Citizens United and criticizes DOJ's attacks on Texas over redistricting; meanwhile, no one in the media is covering the fact that DOJ's litigation against South Carolina was politically motivated, brought over the objections of liberal career staff. [Senate Judiciary Committee; Adams]
- SCOTUSblog symposium on the Fisher case.
- Our vulnerable embassies. [City Journal; Steyn]
- Did the NCAA exceed its powers to shake down Penn State for tens of millions of dollars? [Little]
- Is the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States an agency beyond judicial review? [Elwood @ Volokh]
- "If At First You Don't Succeed As A Patent Troll, Just Sue Again" [TechDirt]
- "Ambassador's murder fuels calls for hate-speech bans" [OL link round-up]
- Calls for a new Glass-Steagall are political posturing and misguided. [Wallach]
- A small number of studies report positive results for childhood early intervention programs; most do not. [Murray]
- "Obama skirts rule of law to reward pals, punish foes" [Barone]
- Epstein on the Obama DNC speech. [Epstein]
Around the web, September 16
Related Entries:
- Unique Texas class action law scuttles $0 shareholder derivative settlement
- Around the web, September 5
- Around the web, September 4
- Cert grant in The Standard Fire Insurance Co. v. Knowles
- More on the Daye diversity study
- Bogus "diversity study"
- The soft bigotry of low expectations
- CPSC attempting to ban "Buckyballs"
- Around the web, July 27
- Lawyers and law firms contribute heavily to the presidential campaign
- Labor unions spend four times as much as previously thought on politics
- What's at Stake in 2012: The Supreme Court
- Is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau truly independent?
- Some Supreme Court roundups
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Laura Eyi Press Officer, Manhattan Institute leyi@manhattan-institute.org |




Leave a comment
Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.
The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.