McBlogmick

RT @ProfHolloway: This is subject of my new book #LegalFictions Constituting Race… The legal boundedness of race matters #nerdland

RT @ProfHolloway: A conundrum-we can’t trust institutional discriminations to end even tho we want race to matter less #RaceMatters #ner …

Nocera’s critique of US News rankings. I wish there was a clear solution. http://t.co/PRjnf7k7

Collectively bargaining is more powerful for workers with rare skills. This is a surprise? ://nyti.ms/S7v2ob

SCOTUS preview: this is areally big year for civil/human rights. http://t.co/AWKTcUwo

Mootness is currently at issue in this Supreme Court case over whether a houseboat that doesn’t move is a vessel. The suit is actually against the houseboat under maritime law, and now the houseboat has been destroyed, but all of the parties are arguing that the case isn’t moot.

Also, Fisher v. University of Texas  is probably on your radar because it involves the hot topic of affirmative action in higher education. What you may not know is that it could potentially raise standing and mootness questions as explained here, here, and here for example.

These have nothing to do with each other except that they both relate to issues relevant to my gender seminar–and in part to employment discrimination. First, the District Court for the Northern District of California has struck down the defense of marriage act, applying heightened scrutiny to the federal office of personnel management’s refusal to award spousal benefits to an employee married to someone of the same sex. The woman whose benefits are at issue is an employee of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Chief Judge had ordered OPM to provide the benefits on the grounds that not doing so violated the Ninth Circuit’s policy of nondiscrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. When OPM continued to refuse, Lambda Legal filed the law suit that was just decided, challenging DOMA.

And for a fun diversion, see here (and follow the link) to swap the audio for Lego ads for boys and girls. You know how I feel about “girl” toys and “boy” toys. . . .

The Supreme Court issued its opinion in VOPA v. Stewart, which asked whether independent state agencies could sue state officials for constitutional violations using Ex Parte Young. 09-529.pdf (application/pdf Object).

The answer in a nutshell, yes. This is a big immunity case, and an interesting read.

Counting Mixed-Race America Grows Ever More Complex – NYTimes.com.

This is highly relevant to our consideration of race in employment discrimination.

Apropos of a discussion we had in criminal law on @bystanders, I found this NPR story thought provoking:  http://www.npr.org/2011/01/10/132809397/the-dilemma-of-the-bystander