Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Another term of the US Supreme Court has come and gone and, as I have for years, I will say something about it in this blog in a set of four posts. Welcome to the first. There have been important decisions this term I will not discuss. For example, I won't get to a significant decision on jury trials, Ramos v. Louisiana,  decided in April. Though the court has long considered that the right to a jury trial was incorporated in the 14th amendment and thus applied to the states, it had not considered whether the requirement that the jury be unanimous in any conviction vote was part of the principle at issue. This April, by a 6-3 vote (written, interestingly, by Gorsuch) it held answered that question in the affirmative. I could find little to say about this point, though, not easily found elsewhere, so I will leave it be here. Also: there was an important decision late this term about the SEC's use of disgorgement of profits as both remedy and punishment for securities frau...

In the wake of the whole let's-not-default escapade, I don't see Cruz as   the   nominee of the Republican Party in 2016. He might be   a   nominee, though, in a fractured-party context. In much the same way that the Democrats had three nominees in 1948. Cruz would be a Henry Wallace type figure.   The Bush family remains powerful in the Republican Party and I think they'll back somebody. This could mean Jeb, portrayed above, but if he doesn't want the job (and he   might   be rational enough not to want it) it'll mean some family associate. The Bushie to be named later (TBNL) will be the Henry Truman type figure in my '48 analogy.   There may also be an outlier, a regionally-limited figure who nonetheless wants a spot at the table, like Strom T. in the 1948 Democratic context. In the 21st century Republican context, though, the regional outlier will be a northeastern Republican who will be open to the charge tha...