Results matching “"ben stein"”

April 14 roundup - PointOfLaw Forum

Around the web, October 24 - PointOfLaw Forum

  • If you think the card check provisions in EFCA are outrageous, wait till you hear about the mandatory arbitration [Kirsanow, NRO Corner]
  • "Prohibition of Excessive Overtime in Health Care Act will Exacerbate Nursing Shortage" [Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Blog]
  • Suppose plaintiffs win Wyeth v. Levine and Vermont juries can second-guess FDA on medication's labeling for IV use. What then? [ER Stories]
  • Other pre-emption issues are bustin' out all over [Beck & Herrmann (U.S. Supreme Court, food regulation), NLJ (NHTSA, seat belts), Mundy/WSJ, Carter/ABA Journal (various federal agencies), Cal Biz Lit (autos, California court of appeal)]
  • Must be those awful deregulators at work: workplace injuries decline for sixth consecutive year [Henke, Next Right via Friedersdorf]
  • Emergence of Delaware as favored asbestos plaintiff's forum could dull the state's edge in corporate law, gee thanks Senator Biden [Bainbridge, WSJ edit, SE Texas Record]
  • Annulling credit default swaps as void: could this be Ben Stein's worst idea yet? [Salmon]

Shorting Stein - PointOfLaw Forum

Speaking of weak opinion pieces in the pages of the Times, Felix Salmon once again enjoys a field day at Ben Stein's expense:

Stein also can't conceive of a world in which some people suffer losses without other people (invariably investment bankers) finding themselves with enormous gains. "The false god of deregulation allows unscrupulous people to loot the system," he says, convinced that a cabal of cackling capitalists is somewhere cheering the present crisis, making billions of dollars every time another bank implodes.

The really funny bit is where Stein contrasts the winners and the losers. On the winning side you have "Wall Street", while on the losing side you have "the people who were wiped out in Bear Stearns stock", as though such people were widows in Omaha rather than the very investment bankers who Stein thinks are gaming the system so that they always win.

"Premised largely on a repudiation of Occam's razor" - PointOfLaw Forum

Felix Salmon traces the connections between Ben Stein's apparent view that conspiracies by nefarious hedge-funders brought down Bear Stearns, and Stein's cinematic efforts as a promoter of creationism "intelligent design".

Lerach: "Everybody was paying plaintiffs" - PointOfLaw Forum

"A prominent class-action lawyer facing sentencing today for secretly paying plaintiffs to file securities lawsuits, William Lerach, is suggesting that the under-the-table practice was widespread and was not isolated to the firm he helped run for decades, Milberg Weiss. ... Despite the highly publicized travails of what was once America's leading class-action law firm, there has been little public discussion of whether other firms may have emulated the secret payment scheme Lerach and other Milberg lawyers devised." Notwithstanding a request by Lerach's lawyers that the letters from his friends and supporters asking clemency be sealed from public inspection, most of the letters have become public, revealing the identities of such entirely unsurprising Lerach backers as Ralph Nader (who in this one particular case did not favor prison for white-collar criminality) and Ben Stein, known to readers of these pages (though apparently not to many readers of his New York Times column) as an expert witness hired repeatedly by Lerach to help portray sued companies' conduct in the harshest possible light. (Josh Gerstein, "Lerach Says Payoffs Were Widespread", New York Sun, Feb. 11). Another letter writer: Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) And the list of letter-writers (PDF) includes "two redacted names in between Gordon Churchill and Charles Cohen", leading to speculation that one or both surnames might be "Clinton". It seems unlikely, though, that either prominent ex-White House resident would have risked the sort of negative publicity involved even as a gesture to acknowledge Lerach's past favors. (CalLaw "Legal Pad", Feb. 8)(cross-posted from Overlawyered)(corrected shortly after posting to reflect release of most letters by stipulation of parties, not judicial order). Update 4 p.m. EST: sentence is 24 months.

Around the web, February 11 - PointOfLaw Forum

  • New York officials move to ban unlicensed private ownership of chemical/radiological detection equipment [Volokh, Village Voice]
  • Insurance coverage litigation highlights of 2007 make a better read than anyone had a right to expect [Maniloff/Lexis via Rossmiller, also podcast]
  • Heartburn after a hot-chili meal, or cardiac distress? Better to err on the side of an ER referral [Starr/Cortlandt Forum via KevinMD]
  • There's a time for the Supreme Court to weigh policy considerations in securities law, and a time for it not to [Bainbridge]
  • PBS airing "Kingdom", series on small-town British lawyer [Cathy Gellis]
  • "Incoherent mess", "easy-to-spot falsehoods and silly exaggerations": Felix Salmon tells us exactly what he thinks of Ben Stein's latest [Portfolio]

Around the web, September 20 - PointOfLaw Forum

Around the web, August 27 - PointOfLaw Forum

  • Sorry, forum-shoppers, says New Jersey appeals court, but British Vioxx users have to sue Merck in Britain [NJLJ]

  • "As a general matter, we don't work with plaintiffs lawyers on a contingency fee." -- Maine assistant AG Peter LaFond, interviewed at WSJ Law Blog.

  • A no-liability Bermuda Triangle on the Montana and Idaho edges of Yellowstone Park? [Casper Star-Tribune]

  • Well, this should be fun: comedian/NYT business columnist/Milberg expert/bete noire of this site Ben Stein is narrator of a new movie promoting "Intelligent Design" [Orac, Panda's Thumb]

  • Outsourcing the picket line, cont'd: Miami carpenters' union said to pay only $20/day to homeless picketer, not exactly "living wage" [Miami New Times; earlier here, here, etc.]

  • "As much as I believe in the jury system, I routinely work to stay out of it -- and so does every good trial lawyer, at least part of the time." [Reed]

  • Prosecutors resubmit plea deal for disbarred Miami asbestos attorney/scamster Louis Robles [Daily Business Review]

  • More on defensive medicine and emergency room referrals [AngryDoc via KevinMD]

Ben Stein playing Enron with Central Bank - PointOfLaw Forum

Ben Stein once again sounds off in the NYT on aiding and abetting. As I discuss, he prefers to obfuscate by beating the Enron horse rather than actually dealing with the genuine problems involved in extending aiding and abetting liability. I also show that we might be better off if this were the Enron case because that would give the Court an opportunity to kill scheme liability rather than just cutting off some limbs.

Poor Ben Stein - PointOfLaw Forum

Now Brad DeLong is on his case, and it isn't pretty (via Kirkendall)(more).

That's so not fair - PointOfLaw Forum

Ben Stein: no shame, or no memory? - PointOfLaw Forum

On Oct. 19 we quoted Bruce Carton as predicting a "barrage of deafeningly loud disapproval from the plaintiffs' bar and consumer groups" over the Paulson Committee's proposals for curtailing securities suits. Right on schedule, we heard in Sunday's Times from the most comic expert witness in Milberg Weiss's stable, wearing his "Times columnist" hat. If you're still clutching your sides in helpless laughter over this from Seth Mnookin, Larry Ribstein can restore some perspective (here, too).

The pity is that in the hermetic world of the Times Sunday Business section, they probably imagine that running Ben Stein somehow gives them a claim to balance, since he channels the views of the plaintiff's securities class-action bar from a "conservative" point of view, while other writers there do so from a more conventional liberal point of view. (See also Ted, below.)

Ben Stein on management buyouts - PointOfLaw Forum

Ben Stein is filling in for Gretchen Morgenson this week in the NYT. His big idea is to ban management buyouts, completely. Among other jewels of wisdom, he compares them to racial segregation and housing discrimination. As Dave Barry would say, I'm not making this up. Here's more.

Peacocks in the barnyard - PointOfLaw Forum

Los Angeles Times reporter Molly Selvin wanted my opinion of class-actioneer Bill Lerach for this profile, so I gave it. Holding up the other end of the discussion are Lerach fans Jamie Court, of Harvey Rosenfield's outfit, and actor/humorist/ expert-economic-witness-in-Milberg-cases Ben Stein ("Unsettling Days for King of Class Actions", Jul. 23)(cross-posted from Overlawyered).

The YLS endorsement - PointOfLaw Forum

In the New York Times article detailing how Yale Law School is the scene of little support for and much opposition to the nomination of its alumnus Sam Alito, Larry Ribstein notes a remarkable comment by Prof. Owen Fiss, on Clarence Thomas, another YLS alum: "The one lesson for the law school was that we didn't work hard enough to oppose him."

Who is this "we"? Is Fiss saying that Yale should have an official position on a political issue? If so, is anyone else bothered by the notion that an educational institution should have and enforce a particular orthodox view? Or by the possibility that one of its most senior and respected faculty members thinks it should?

Aside from the dissenting views of Profs. Priest, Romano, Schuck, Macey and a couple of others, it may well be that Yale Law can be described as a collective political "we". At Concurring Opinions where Daniel Solove discusses the issue, Robert Schwartz posts a comment worth preserving:

Ben Stein wrote the second of two columns about whether he should continue to give money to Yale Law school, seeing as how Yale's endowment now exceeds ten digits and is growing by leaps and bounds. He said:

"There are ties that are more than rational, more than sensible. They are the mystic chords of memory to which Lincoln referred. ... I'll keep giving to Yale, and with a full heart, for the memory of Henry Varnum Poor and the many other kind souls of New Haven. Not everything is about reason."

A fund raiser's delight that column was. So here is the question, should Yale want its alumni to evaluate its fund raising requests through the golden glow of nostalgic memory, while it evaluates them through the cold eye of hyper-partisan liberal politics[?] Should it ask only for mercy and give only justice? Is that going to work on a long term basis?

More: Yale Daily News (faculty members deny unified stance of opposition to Alito).

Politics or the Rule of Law Yet Again - PointOfLaw Featured Discussion

As this is written the Roberts hearings, scheduled to begin on Tuesday, are in some jeopardy, because of the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist, and because of the ongoing turmoil over the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The President finds himself under a barrage of criticism from Democrats for failing to deliver more relief to New Orleans (as if he had the power to do that), and there are reports that the Mayor of New Orleans, in an act of extraordinary chutzpah, has asked for a delay in the Roberts hearings so that the Administration can concentrate on aid to his city. We may never know whether the devastation that hit New Orleans is due simply to an act of God, to a failure by state and local officials, or to a federal relief effort which was too slow, but it looks to me, as Ben Stein has argued in the American Spectator, as if objective observers would conclude that President Bush has done nothing wrong, and that those claiming he did are engaging in the crassest and most reprehensible form of partisan politics.

Similarly, the extraordinary posturing that we are beginning to see coming from the Senate, in the wake of the Chief�s passing, is anything but the fulfillment of the advise and consent function as traditionally understood. Thus, Senator Schumer, who has come to be the leading champion of the notion that �judicial ideology� needs to be balanced on the Court, and who appears to have believed that under Rehnquist the court became unbalanced in a rightward direction, now declares that the hearings should be delayed because, as he said on ABC, � We can take a few days out to mourn Justice Rehnquist. He was a towering figure in the judiciary . . . Judge Roberts was his law clerk, and Judge Rehnquist was Judge Roberts' mentor. I think it makes a good deal of sense for us to take time, catch our breath and take a few days out.� Even more remarkably, Senator Christopher Dodd has suggested that the President should consider asking Justice O�Connor temporarily to rescind her retirement, presumably to become acting Chief Justice, in order to give the President more time to consider how permanently to replace the Chief Justice.

What appears to be going on in this attempt to delay the President and the Senate from carrying out their constitutionally-mandated functions is to give the Senate Democrats, their allies in the liberal interest groups, and the main stream media more time to make the case that the President cannot be permitted to pack the Court with the sort of conservative nominees he has promised, and that the Court must remain �balanced,� and that, in Cass Sunstein�s bizarre appellation, no �fundamentalist Conservatives� need apply.

One side in this debate, then, appears ready to use any tactic or opportunity at hand to engage in a politically-motivated effort to dictate the kind of result-oriented jurisprudence on the Court it favors, as I suggested in my last post. We can only hope that the White House will be able to perceive this effort for what it is, and mount a strong case that to delay Judge Roberts�s confirmation, to delay the selection of a new Chief Justice, or to give in to the nonsense about �judicial ideology� or �fundamentalist conservative,� would be nothing short of a betrayal of the Constitution and the rule of law itself. I hope somebody at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is reading Richard�s and my efforts.