Comments on: Judging Securities Law http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/03/judging_securit.html The Law, the Universe, and Everything Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:18:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Rfxooie http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/03/judging_securit.html/comment-page-1#comment-59902 Rfxooie Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:25:14 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/03/judging-securities-law.html#comment-59902 chubby bondage <a href="http://www.internetvoices.net/chubby.html" rel="nofollow">chubby teen fucking</a> chubby bondage chubby teen fucking

]]> By: Rfxooie http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/03/judging_securit.html/comment-page-1#comment-59901 Rfxooie Mon, 09 Oct 2006 14:24:31 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/03/judging-securities-law.html#comment-59901 chubby bondage <a href="http://www.internetvoices.net/chubby.html" rel="nofollow">chubby teen fucking</a> chubby bondage chubby teen fucking

]]> By: Mike Flacklestein http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/03/judging_securit.html/comment-page-1#comment-59900 Mike Flacklestein Thu, 15 Jun 2006 06:41:49 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/03/judging-securities-law.html#comment-59900 I live at 74408 Commonwealth in Seattle. Been up here before? I live at 74408 Commonwealth in Seattle. Been up here before?

]]> By: ProfessorBainbridge.com http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/03/judging_securit.html/comment-page-1#comment-59903 ProfessorBainbridge.com Wed, 22 Mar 2006 20:54:02 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/03/judging-securities-law.html#comment-59903 <strong>Dabit: SLUSA in the SCOTUS</strong> In Merrill, Lynch v. Dabit, the Supreme Court (per Justice Stevens and by 8-0) addressed suits brought by investors who claim they held on to their investments in reliance on allegedly fraudulent statements by issuers and analysts. Under the Supreme Dabit: SLUSA in the SCOTUS

In Merrill, Lynch v. Dabit, the Supreme Court (per Justice Stevens and by 8-0) addressed suits brought by investors who claim they held on to their investments in reliance on allegedly fraudulent statements by issuers and analysts. Under the Supreme

]]> By: Stuart http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/03/judging_securit.html/comment-page-1#comment-59899 Stuart Tue, 21 Mar 2006 17:04:04 +0000 http://www.solove.org/archives/2006/03/judging-securities-law.html#comment-59899 It's not just that the dollar amounts at stake are bigger, it's also that the economic consequences are bigger. Securities law is critical because it governs capital formation and storage of value. The Supreme Court's lack of interest and/or expertise in this area could be a time bomb. In fact, I'd say that the Court's "jurisprudence" in most areas of business law is laughable: intellectual property, bankruptcy, securities - these are areas that are critical to the economy, which I get the sense the Court takes from a sense of duty and without real enthusiasm. This is a consequence of the "professionalization" of the Supreme Court. No knock on the Chief Justice, but his "expertise" as a litigator was in crafting arguments for the courts. To a somewhat lesser extent, that was Alito's as well, though he was a prosecutor too. Ginsburg? Breyer? Stevens? Kennedy? Scalia? What do these people know about substantive law? I'm not suggesting that any practitioner can have the sort of broad experience in minutiae that would allow him/her to be familiar with many substantive areas of law, but it would be helpful to have someone on the Court whose legal experience is somewhat less rarefied than the current inhabitants'. When is the last time a partner at a large firm went on the court? It’s not just that the dollar amounts at stake are bigger, it’s also that the economic consequences are bigger. Securities law is critical because it governs capital formation and storage of value. The Supreme Court’s lack of interest and/or expertise in this area could be a time bomb. In fact, I’d say that the Court’s “jurisprudence” in most areas of business law is laughable: intellectual property, bankruptcy, securities – these are areas that are critical to the economy, which I get the sense the Court takes from a sense of duty and without real enthusiasm.

This is a consequence of the “professionalization” of the Supreme Court. No knock on the Chief Justice, but his “expertise” as a litigator was in crafting arguments for the courts. To a somewhat lesser extent, that was Alito’s as well, though he was a prosecutor too. Ginsburg? Breyer? Stevens? Kennedy? Scalia? What do these people know about substantive law? I’m not suggesting that any practitioner can have the sort of broad experience in minutiae that would allow him/her to be familiar with many substantive areas of law, but it would be helpful to have someone on the Court whose legal experience is somewhat less rarefied than the current inhabitants’. When is the last time a partner at a large firm went on the court?

]]>