UPDATED: March 11, 2021 at 2:15 p.m.
Eighteen Harvard affiliates â including Cornel R. West â74, Steven A. Pinker, and Ronald S. Sullivan Jr. â signed on as founding members of a new nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to defending academicsâ freedom of expression.
The Academic Freedom Alliance, which officially launched Monday, arose out of conversations among professors at Princeton University about free speech on college campuses. By invitation, 17 current Harvard faculty and one incoming Harvard Law School professor joined the initiative.
Keith E. Whittington â a professor of politics at Princeton who formerly taught at HLS and serves as the chair of Allianceâs Academic Committee â said the associationâs founding was motivated by a âsteady drumbeat of faculty who found themselves under threat because of something they had said or done or taught.â
regarding justice kagan s involvement in health care legislation or related litigation while she served as united states solicitor general. despite claims from obama administration officials that then solicitor general kagan was walled off from discussions regarding the president s health care law, recently released e-mails indicate there may be more to the story. on march 21st, 2010, an e-mail from the deputy solicitor general forwarded to solicitor general kagan contained information about a meeting at the white house on the health care law and asked, i think you should go. no, i will regardless but feel this is litigation of singular importance. solicitor general kagan responded by asking him for his phone number. we also know from the e-mails that she personally supported the legislation s passage in a march 21st, 2010 exchange with the justice department colleague discussing the health care
still out there somewhere. that s right. there is one suspect on the loose. should be mindful that all of the arrests have taken place in the northeast portion of the united states. the one suspect that is still being sought used the name christopher mistos. he is not in custody. he did not live in the united states. he purported to be a canadian citizen. according to the legal documents at some point he received a bag of money from officials that were connected with the russian/u.n. mission here in new york and at this hour he is being sought. shep? shepard: david lee miller live in new york tonight. thanks very much. now, judging the nominee. one senator said today confirmation hearings can be like eating spatting with a spoon. a lot of work not very satisfying. lawmakers seemed ready to dig in this afternoon as elena kagan supreme court confirmation hearings began. the current united states solicitor general walked into the hart senate office building on capitol hill where she q
characterizes herring a a center left? they said they don t want to get into labeling. they think she s qualified. if you look at the audience, it was the folks within the liberal, progressive, left leaning side of the judicial analysis and support groups in washington. she worked for president clinton and president obama, both who consider themself center left of the political spectrum and the president, having interviewed kagan, he s comfortable with her perspective on legal matters and is not naive on constitutional efforts. they don t want to characterize her at center left but that s where she falls. who is she? she has a solid legal ground and these the united states solicitor general which means the united states government
justice alito, justice scalia robustly attacked the argument made by the united states solicitor general on behalf of obama care and even more so when you saw a sense of urgency and deep concern by the justices when they weighed and considered whether or not the case of the individual mandate should be severed from the remainder of the law. so we walked away from the united states supreme court feeling very confident about what the outcome of this would be, but understanding that there is no fair conclusive way we can predict. we can hope for the best and be prepared for the worst. greta: i assume that you would also agree that the supreme court s decision is not what would be the effect should it hold it constitutional or unconstitutional. it s whether simply it is constitutional or not. then we move to the second part if you agree with that. the second question is if it is upheld as constitutional completely, what is the impact on your state? if the law is upheld completely, then