PHILADELPHIA REPUBLICAN MAYORAL DEBATE

JOHN FEATHERMAN v. KAREN BROWN

WEDNESDAY APRIL 20th, 630-930PM

I CAN GET EVERYONE AND ANYONE IN FOR FREE

LET ME KNOW IF YOU WANT TO GO. THIS SHOULD BE A GREAT EVENT. IT IS A VERY CONTENTIOUS ELECTION, TO SAY THE LEAST

Our "venerable" Philly DA wouldn't be investigating for political reasons. OR WOULD HE?

http://articles.philly.com/2011-03-11/news/28680520_1_grand-jury-jennifer-jandrisitz-committeemen

South Philly Conflict Resolution Panel?

I'll post later today regarding the speaker.  Until then, this from 5th and Washington, not for the faint of heart:

Clark Neily Can't Do the Debate

Mike Moceri just heard back from Clark.  I'll search the speakers list tomorrow morning and post a list of names I plan to contact.  Everybody else should do the same.  The list is available in the dropbox account.  The folder also includes a sample contact form.  Let's rally here before sending anything out.

This is what I'm talking about!

Keep it up Steve!  Good stuff.  I like this choice little nugget:

"On the Republican side, real-estate agent John Featherman said he would not seek the GOP endorsement since party leaders last week recruited a longtime Democrat, retired teacher Karen Brown, to run for mayor.

"The people who are at the top are running the Republican Party into the ground," said Featherman, adding that GOP voters regard Brown's bid as a fraud.

Brown, who had tried to run for City Council as a Democrat, dismissed Featherman's complaints and said GOP leaders "have been exceptional with me. They've welcomed me with open arms."

Featherman filed 2,060 signatures; Brown filed 1,494."

Aside from that, is anyone under the misconception that Milton Street is a sane, non-mockery?

RUNDOWN OF ALL LOCAL CANDIDATES RUNNING FOR OFFICE...

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20110309_Nutter_facing_another_Street_in_mayoral_race.html

POLITICS RIGHT IN OUR BACKYARD...

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/hotbutton/117281658.html



NOT A REAL CANDIDATE

March 7th Meeting Recap

Hi,

We had a great meeting. For those not present, please read the following and remember to accept the blogger author permission request to post on this blog. Should anyone have an idea for an event, a question about the organization, etc, this is the place to ask or offer it.  Our names are linked to emails, but only in the first instance of their use, as I have homework.

Organizational Chart: Please contact parties below for help in planning any suggested event.

• President: Sean Bigley
• Vice President: Matt Mossman
• Marketing/Membership/Chapter Contacts: Meg Theranger and Steve Boc
• Emsol Contact: Rachel King
• Lawyers Chapter Contact: Steve Boc and Chris Dodson
• Treasurer: Don Shaw
• Topics/Blog Manager: Brett Donner
• Event Management: Everyone, but specifically

2nd Amendment Debate: The following people hold responsibilities regarding our upcoming debate, to be held, hopefully, in the third week of april.  As of now, we will host Clark Neily, who will debate Professor Bogus concerning McDonald v. Chicago.

• Event Manager: Colleen Swim
• Speaker Contact: Mike Moceri
• ACS Contact: Chris Dodson

Judge Panel: If we can come up with something (see previous post on district court originalism), the following will have responsibilities.

• Event Manager: Lewis Ouksel
• Speaker Contacts: Sean Bigley and Lewis Okseul

End of Year Party with Local Chapters

• Steve Boc and Meg Theranger

August Orientation Planning (trip to the gun range, open bar, whatever ideas people post to the blog)

• Planning Contact: Frank Palecko

Judicial Butt-cuts are approved for the meeting

Meeting: Monday, 3pm, Room 302

The meeting is scheduled for Room 302 from 3-4pm this coming monday. Come on down.

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed?

We need to start thinking about posters to put up around school. Bring ideas on monday.

Anybody Like Playing With Blogger?

I do not, though I do like to post.

It's come to my attention that we may have lost Scott Molski (awesome dude, internet businessman) for at least a semester. As such, is anyone interested in taking a degree of stewardship over the blog? It would involve a loose commitment to post as often as possible, though not excessively, including meeting minutes, announcements, etc, with a mind to getting away from the email announcement format. Nothing too serious, but, as you may have noticed, it might be better if someone other than me concerned him/herself with the design, colors and other amenities.

Takers?

How about we get some Federal judges together?

Check this out. And this.

So, even if one agrees with originalism as a jurisprudential philosophy, which I do, the notion that district court judges should apply it to federal legislation seems problematic. Eugene Volokh puts it succinctly: "Judge Vinson is only a District Court judge. Under the principle of vertical stare decisis, he is bound by Supreme Court precedent. See, e.g, Winslow v. F.E.R.C., 587 F.3d 1133. 1135 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (Kavanaugh, J.) (“Vertical stare decisis — both in letter and in spirit — is a critical aspect of our hierarchical Judiciary headed by ‘one supreme Court.’”) (citing U.S. Const. art. III, § 1). And when Supreme Court precedent conflicts with original meaning, Judge Vinson is bound to follow the former."

We should get some district court judges, maybe even a circuit court judge if we can swing it, to have a conversation, before an audience, about the propriety of applying one's judicial philosophy at the trial or appellate court level, as opposed to the Supreme Court.

Any thoughts?

Re: Institute for Justice Tour Guide Case

This is perfect! The case was dismissed as moot at the district level (see opinion), as the city declined to enforce the law. This would make for a fantastic speaker event.

Anyone want to contact someone at IJ? We'd also want to find a professor at the law school who deals with licensing and regulation, or with the impact of legislation on freedom of speech. Let me know if you're interested.

Everyone should feel free and encouraged to post topics such as this when you come across them.

Discussion/Debate Topics

I guess I'll kick things off here. Is anyone else interested in taking a look at economic rights? For example, there have been a couple of lawsuits around the country challenging occupational licensing restrictions. I can't remember the name of the case, but the Institute for Justice is litigating a case here in Philadelphia on the issue. Basically, the city passed a law saying you have to be licensed in order to be a tour guide here. The justification is supposedly that it will protect tourists from being scammed, but the real goal appears to be to protect the current tour guides from any new competition. I realize that Lochner is no longer good law (unfortunately), but it sounds like an interesting topic to me. Any thoughts?