New York Times (March 21)
“Gig companies have drawn billions in venture capital funding to help underwrite a system that is a race to the bottom for labor protections. But it doesn’t have to be that way.” Britain’s Supreme Court has ruled that Uber must now classify its drivers as workers. “If Uber can sustain its business while granting drivers improved guaranteed benefits and a financial safety net, then surely that model can be replicated elsewhere.” Uber drivers and other Gig workers “deserve the opportunity to make financial headway.”
Tags: Benefits, Drivers, Gig, Labor, Opportunity, Protections, Safety net, Supreme Court, Uber, UK, VC, Workers
Wall Street Journal (December 14)
The Supreme Court loss means “President Trump’s legal challenges have run their course.” With “no remaining legal alternatives,” both the President and “the rest of the Republican Party can help the country and themselves by acknowledging the result and moving on.” Unfortunately, “there’s no predicting how Mr. Trump will behave.” He may very well “continue his ‘stolen’ election claims past Jan. 20.”
Tags: Alternatives, Claims, Election, Legal challenges, Loss, Moving on, Republicans, Result, Stolen, Supreme Court, Trump
USA Today (October 7)
The “superspreader” event in the Rose Garden will go down in history. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the “maskless Supreme Court nomination ceremony turned into a form of biological attack on the top echelons of U.S. government.” Symbolic of “America’s failing response to the novel coronavirus,” the event was “a sad brew of hubris and misapplied science.” White House officials and guests mistakenly thought “they could frolic in a kind of virus-free bubble, exempted from the preventative measures that have reshaped and constrained the lives of millions of average Americans.”
Tags: Biological attack, Bubble, Ceremony, COVID-19, Failing, Frolic, History, Hubris, Maskless, Nomination, Pandemic, Rose Garden, Superspreader, Supreme Court, U.S.
The Guardian (September 24)
“The supreme court has delivered a comprehensive demolition of Boris Johnson’s government and its handling of Brexit. The unanimous judgment of the 11 justices…amounts to a root and branch rejection of the prime minister’s attempts to rule without parliament, to take Britain out of the European Union by 31 October without a deal, and to contrive a premature general election…. The immediate effect of the judgment is devastating for Johnson. It is expressed so cogently and unambiguously that it will be difficult for him to wriggle out of it – even though he is certainly foolish enough to try.”
Tags: Brexit, Devastating, EU, Foolish, Johnson, Judgment, Parliament, Rejection, Supreme Court, UK, Unanimous
Chicago Tribune (September 27)
“Separating politics from process in Washington is harder than scraping gum from the sidewalk in summer. But for the benefit of Ford, Kavanaugh and the confirmation process…. there should be more investigative work done….. A quick vote up or down would leave unanswered the fundamental question of a Supreme Court nominee’s character and fitness.”
Tags: Character, Confirmation, Fitness, Ford, Investigative work, Kavanaugh, Nominee, Politics, Process, Supreme Court, Vote
New York Times (March 30)
“In recent years, the government has too often given patent protection to inventions that do not represent real scientific advances.” With patent applications more than tripling during the past 20 years, many of the patents granted “appear to be overly broad and vague.” In an upcoming case, the Supreme Court will have a chance to narrow the scope of what’s patentable. “The Supreme Court should make clear that nobody should be allowed to claim a monopoly over an abstract idea.”
Tags: Abstract idea, Applications, Government, Inventions, Monopoly, Overly broad, Patent, Protection, Scientific advances, Supreme Court, U.S., Vague
New York Times (October 3)
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case with implications for overseas companies. “The issue is whether American courts can hear cases brought by noncitizens against multinational corporations that do business in the United States for committing extreme human rights abuses abroad — and, if so, under what rules.” The Times believes that in general these cases should be allowed.The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing a case with implications for overseas companies. “The issue is whether American courts can hear cases brought by noncitizens against multinational corporations that do business in the United States for committing extreme human rights abuses abroad — and, if so, under what rules.” The Times believes that in general these cases should be allowed.
San Francisco Chronicle (June 30)
Japan’s Supreme Court “ruled in favor of a whistleblower for the first time.” The case involved Masaharu Hamada, 51, who was demoted after raising issues at Olympus Corporation. The Supreme Court “sealed the victory of the little ‘salaryman’ against a giant of Japan Inc.” The Chronicle reports Japan only has “a handful” of whistleblowers because “they are treated as outcasts…. So abhorred is the employee who dares to question the company.”
Tags: Japan, Olympus, Salaryman, Supreme Court, Whistleblower
Time (March 26)
“The Supreme Court should uphold the Health Care Law 9-0.” In contrast to many developed countries, the U.S. does not yet offer universal health care. But under President Obama…it has plans. The Supreme Court is currently examining the constitutionality of the planned healthcare law, which would require every citizen to have a provider.
Tags: Health care, Obama, Supreme Court, U.S.
Chicago Tribune (June 28)
The Supreme Court effectively struck down Chicago’s ban on handguns. Last weekend, 26 people were shot and 3 killed. The weekend before the totals were double: 50 shot and 8 killed. “Chicago has to win the daily struggle on its streets.” Without the handgun ban, the city will need to look for new options.
Tags: Chicago, Handguns, Supreme Court
