Consistent Legal Scholarship?

Eric Posner has called attention to his occasional coauthor Adrian Vermeule’s forthcoming article-length critique of Philip Hamburger’s most recent book, Is Administrative Law Unlawful? (If you don’t want to wait for the review to appear in the pages of the Texas Law Review you can access a copy at SSRN here.) Over at The Originalism Blog, Michael Ramsey opines that Vermeule’s critique of Hamburger is inconsistent with Vermeule’s defense of the imperial Presidency in the last book he coauthored with Posner, The Executive Unbound. Vermeule has since shot back that there is no inconsistency between Executive and his current critique of Hamburger (though without explaining why). Interestingly, Vermeule has “den[ied] that consistency is a virtue for academics.” Does he mean all academics or just legal academics? And regardless, why?

Eucharistic Lawsuit, Contra Volokh

So, some group of Satanists is planning a “Black Mass” where they will, among other things, desecrate an allegedly consecrated Host, that is, the body, blood, and soul of our Lord Jesus Christ. Some have raised questions over whether or not the Host has actually been consecrated; others have asked how it is this Satanist group has come by this Host. Now it has come out that the Archbishop of Oklahoma City — where this Mass is, allegedly, going to be performed — is suing to have the Host returned to them. Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA and the founder of the Volokh Conspiracy web-log, has weighed-in on the matter here. He draws some analogies in order to determine, in the abstract, if the Catholic Church has a legal interest in the return of the Host. Upon learning of the Satanists’ claim that they have a “double agent” priest within the Church who supplied them with the Host, this is what Volokh has to say on the matter:

The Malaysia Airlines Tragedy and International Law – Postscript

I promise to return to “regularly scheduled programming” soon, but for reasons which I alluded to in my first post in this series, my free attention has been fixed on the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17) and the international response to it. My intention with this series was to clarify, in as simple of terms as possible, the primary international legal issues brought up by this tragedy, including what, if anything, will be done to bring the perpetrators to justice. While we are a long ways away from knowing the full story, new details are increasingly suggesting that the Russian state, directly or indirectly, had some involvement in the destruction of a commercial airliner and the deaths of 298 human beings. In this final post I want to touch on a few hypotheticals and address some questions I have been asked in other forums about the legal fallout to this tragedy. At this point I am still inclined to write a great deal in pencil, but I do think there is enough hard “stuff” out there that we can begin thinking seriously about what type of legal response can be expected.

The Malaysia Airlines Tragedy and International Law – Part Three

In this my third and final post (for now) on Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (MH17) and international law, I will look at assigning civil liability for the crash and which party will ultimately be left footing the bill. This is not an easy matter to unravel and it could take the better part of a decade or more to sort everything out, especially if any of the blame can be assigned to Ukraine or Russia (more on that in a moment). As it stands right now, I am writing under the already well-supported assumption that pro-Russian separatist militants operating in eastern Ukraine were the ones who launched the missile strike that brought down MH17. The unknown which may, or may not, alter the nature of my analysis is if Russian military forces were involved and to what extent.