What to do? What to say?

by Jay Marshall Wolman

Now that Marc is off Popehatting, the rest of you can now chime in on what you’d like to see more of in this space.  Marc is a First Amendment bad ass, hanging out with his peeps.  Me? I think all of the Amendments are important.  Here I am on the 7th Amendment.  Here I am on the 22nd Amendment.  Here I am tweeting on the 3rd Amendment.  And my scotch collection is a fan of the 21st Amendment.

My preferred focus in law is employment law, but as a civil litigator I’ve handled workers’ compensation, copyright, medical malpractice, real estate disputes, and many  more. I’ve done arbitrations, mediations, state and federal administrative agencies, state and federal trial court cases, and state and federal appeals.  So, though I generally blog about whatever I feel like when it strikes my fancy, I do take requests.

Want a blog post about the 11th Amendment?  Or about what punishments are available to Marc under the 8th Amendment for having gone AWOL? Or why Frederic from The Pirates of Penzance won’t have to wait until 72 years pass before he can vote under the 26th Amendment?  Just ask!  I’ll be here, Nopehatting.

11 Responses to What to do? What to say?

  1. Renee Wiseman says:

    With all the talk in the news about gun control lately, I think something on the second amendment would be well timed.

  2. […] I have my own feelings about how to blog here now that Marco Blanco f/k/a Marc Randazza (what I think his Popehat name […]

  3. Dan says:

    How about the 3rd amendment? I think it’s high time we start defending our abode from government encroachment.

  4. […] asking what to do with this blog, Dan suggested that we blog about the Third Amendment.  Marc actually blogged about a Third Amendment case here […]

  5. dan says:

    heres something disappointingly interesting on the second, amendment.

    • Jay Wolman says:

      Justice Ginsburg is correct about the history. However, she strays from law into policy when she argues that the militia is obsolete. The 2nd Amendment really isn’t about hunting or standing your ground; it is about having the ability to muster to repel an invading force, foreign or domestic. And, I would posit that because we have an armed populace, would-be tyrants and invaders make the rational choice against armed conflict.

      • Dan says:

        So, with out such an armed populace, other countries are ripe for aggression? Or have been for hundreds of years? Countries such as …Canada?

        And Japan never attacked? I might not argue against the point that RBG strayed from law into policy, but….

        • Jay Wolman says:

          It is a hallmark of dictators that they disarm the populace. The 2nd Amendment is sufficient to its purpose even if other factors in a society would tend to avoid a dictatorship.

          • Dan says:

            So I live in a dictatorship? And so does everyone else? I think its more of a hallmark of everyone, else. If you are going to trump up that claim maybe you have a cite for the fact that makes the differential between dictators and the rest? Starting maybe with the dictator you repelled a few hundred years ago. You going to call the UK a dictatorship? I don’t object to moving the goalposts here. I like a good debate. And the ground isn’t frozen yet so when the goalposts move its not that destructive to the field.

%d bloggers like this: