tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post8042135331776584598..comments2024-03-02T02:26:00.928-05:00Comments on bleakonomy: Presumably an anti-unicorn referendum is also on the ballottetracontadigonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04604381739383227553noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-84350708962442312992010-10-30T20:11:39.180-04:002010-10-30T20:11:39.180-04:00My point was simply that if Morris, Ginsberg, and ...My point was simply that if Morris, Ginsberg, and the UK's senior judge were talking about elvish divination, well, perhaps we would be justified in passing laws preventing elvish divination from being used as the basis of court decisions.Gadfly Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-82032057040401624722010-10-26T09:20:50.116-04:002010-10-26T09:20:50.116-04:00GJ, first of all, please don't cite Dick Morri...GJ, first of all, please don't cite Dick Morris. It makes you seem unable to discriminate the quality of your sources.<br /><br />I believe you are misinterpreting what Ginsburg said, and I have no idea what your point is in linking to the Breyer article.<br /><br />The UK has different jurisprudence than the US, so what one judge there has to say is irrelevant.<br /><br />Finally, I will concede that the marital rape case was wrongly decided. The appeals court didn't need some ridiculous new law to overturn the decision. The answer to bad law isn't MORE bad law.Danhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11213051268392108382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-33280370298401715812010-10-25T18:38:35.829-04:002010-10-25T18:38:35.829-04:00Why would anyone have the slightest worry that Wes...Why would <a href="http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/dick-morris/109903-kagan-promoted-shariah" rel="nofollow">anyone</a> have the <a href="http://volokh.com/2010/07/23/cultural-defense-accepted-as-to-nonconsensual-sex-in-new-jersey-trial-court-rejected-on-appeal/" rel="nofollow">slightest worry</a> that <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1031611/Sharia-law-SHOULD-used-Britain-says-UKs-judge.html" rel="nofollow">Western democracies</a>, let alone the <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8300-504083_162-504083.html" rel="nofollow">United States</a>, would ever <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20016378-503544.html" rel="nofollow">consider Sharia's prohibitions</a>?Gadfly Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5393996338560944889.post-70738464545710972582010-10-25T16:29:20.550-04:002010-10-25T16:29:20.550-04:00About the only way that Sharia law would be applie...About the only way that Sharia law would be applied in the courts would be if both parties to a dispute agreed to a choice-of-law clause in an arbitration agreement. If that is the case, the parties could agree to use Sharia law to govern their dispute and to be bound by the result of the Sharia-style adjudication -- a court would enforce that arbitration award if the result of the process were not contrary to a compelling public policy.Burt Likkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16060980744675990412noreply@blogger.com