“This court’s sua sponte grant of review fn. 1 and the resulting majority opinion, substantially departing from long and well established statutory and case law, constitute one of the sadder episodes in the history of this court — a wholly unnecessary and inappropriate intermeddling in the affairs of and curtailment of the liberties of California’s residents. It requires little foresight to predict that this unfortunate decision declaring illegal a practice followed almost universally in the area for many years, insisted on by the only cucumber purchaser in the area and satisfactory to all concerned, will end up harming the very persons it is paternalistically intended to help. Will Rogers is reported to have articulated the folk wisdom: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” That is sound advice for any branch of government; it should be adhered to religiously by the judiciary.”—S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341 (Kaufman, J., dissenting)
“Somewhat remarkably, in my estimation, a recent Board majority held that the failure to inform the union that requested information does not exist does not violate the Act, at least where, as here, the General Counsel has not amended the complaint to so allege.”—
Am. Benefit Corp. & Teamsters Local Union No. 505, Affiliated with the Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 354 NLRB 1039, 1053 (2010)
“Plaintiff has submitted to this Court a carbon copy of a homedrawn complaint (which has been submitted as well to nearly all other United States Courts in existence, according to the style placed on the complaint by plaintiff) in which he states that the defendant failed to process a meritorious charge made by plaintiff under the provisions of Section 160, Title 29, United States Code.”—Drusky v. Shore, 19,220-3A, 1971 WL 781 (W.D. Mo. Mar. 19, 1971)
Hanna Rosin on (over-) parenting and play and what we’ve lost by giving in to the culture of fear.
The part that doesn’t quite hit home for me is the statistics. First, she claims that kids aren’t even that much safer, but doesn’t, for instance, show the numbers using percentages. I think the percentages illustrate a pretty substantial drop in injuries and death.
More importantly, though, the low probability of your child dying or being seriously injured is small comfort to someone whose kid actually dies or is hurt. The cold calculation is that the benefits of free, unsupervised time outweigh the costs, but who can do that cold calculation with a tiny flesh and blood standing there? Simulate life 10,000 times and maybe your child only gets hurt in one of those — but you don’t get 10,000 tries at it.
“… the Postal Service learned that the picture on the Bill Pickett stamp was definitely not Bill Pickett. Instead, it was probably his brother, Ben Pickett.”—Unicover Corp. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 859 F. Supp. 1437, 1439-40 (D. Wyo. 1994)
“violation, since recognition was an objective of U’s threats to picket and picketing of E at construction jobsite, where U could not lawfully raise qcr because E and another U_9(c) representative_were parties to CBA covering Ees, U’s letters to construction manager, E and county commissioners announced U would engage in informational picketing, picket signs read E did not have contract with or employ members of U or any AFL-CIO affiliate and U did not want a contract or recognition from E; U’s self-serving disclaimers were insufficient to find picketing was lawful, U official testified U might have picketed E even if an AFL-CIO affiliate represented E’s Ees, and U would not have picketed site if E recognized or had a contract”—I love the NLRB’s CiteNet digests because they’re basically a law student’s notes on a professor’s lecture
“The interpretation of the proviso as permitting non-coercive informational picketing, irrespective of other hopes and intentions, should be so obvious to anyone with a modest understanding of the English language that resort to the legislative history should be unnecessary.”—Lebus for & on Behalf of N. L. R. B. v. Bldg. & Const. Trades Council of New Orleans & Vicinity, AFL-CIO, 199 F. Supp. 628, 632-33 (E.D. La. 1961) (J. Skelly Wright)
“When Justice Scalia wrote that the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas would result in laws against masturbation (which did not actually exist) being found unconstitutional, some wondered if he had lost his grip on reality.”—Corey Yung