Free Speech and the Administrative State

A conference on January 26 at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School will explore the intersection of administrative law and the First Amendment.

Next Friday, January 26, the Center for the Study of the Administrative State at the George Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School will host a conference on "Free Speech and the Administrative State." Speakers will include legal academics, such as Martin Redish, Tamara Piety, Samuel Bagenstos, Gus Hurwitz, David Vladeck, and Shep Melnick, in addition to practitioners and policy experts, such as Coleen Klasmeier, Andrew McLaughlin, Mike Godwin, Alan Butler, and Harold Kim, as well as Volokh Conspirators Eugene Volokh and David Bernstein. The conference is free and open to the public. Registration information is here.

Comments

[Chris_Virginia]

Bummed to miss this - headed to meet some friends in S. Carolina.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Perhaps that conference would provide an opportunity for people to celebrate the judicial selections of Donald Trump, which some have described as stellar.

The location of the gathering generates pessimism, however, with respect to whether it would hospitable to a libertarian -- or libertarianish -- or 'often libertarian' -- perspective.

[Jonathan Adler]

That article is so bad it hurts. Judge Bush may have gotten that decision wrong (and I'd be curious to hear what Orin thinks about it), but Stern's piece is sloppy and poorly reasoned (and continues his habit of slagging Bush for reading a Hunter Thompson passage in a speech).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do perceive a libertarian argument for the cop-succoring position advanced by Judge Bush in that case? Libertarianish? "Often libertarian?" Anything other than severely authoritarian? If so, would you identify that argument? Thank you very much.

I see no reason to slag anyone for expressing the wisdom of Dr. Hunter S. ('when the going get weird, the weird turn pro') Hunter, one of America's great writers. This is especially true with respect to Judge Bush, who provides a remarkable store of juicy targets in the context of objectionable, disqualifying conduct and statements.

[David Nieporent]

Do perceive a libertarian argument for the cop-succoring position advanced by Judge Bush in that case? Libertarianish? "Often libertarian?" Anything other than severely authoritarian? If so, would you identify that argument? Thank you very much.

Do you comprehend that a judge is supposed to decide constitutional cases based on the constitution, not based on political philosophy? You might be worse at law than Lathrop.