Ezra Ross and Martin Pritikin’s well-researched article regarding the collection of fines and penalties imposed on corporate offenders answers the question of what happens after the enforcement action ends—the government does not collect the vast majority of corporate enforcement penalties imposed. This Essay addresses some of the practical realities of enforcing corporate penalties.

People complain that gerrymandering ruins redistricting. But, in the real world, redistricting is gerrymandering. Whatever their other specialties, all incumbents are, at least decennially, experts on the political demography of their own districts, and the necessary logic of redistricting as an incumbent is to choose your voters on the map before they choose you on the ballot. It is time to replace the winner-take-all, single-member-district mentality with a system that produces what John Stuart Mill considered full representation, in which all citizens are seen and heard through their chosen representatives. The idea is that nearly everyone, if not actually everyone, will help to elect representatives who mirror their views and sentiments. This is what I think of as the “universal representational imperative.”

Elected judges are not alone in having to deal with politics and politicians throughout their careers. This Essay discusses the ethical implications of judicial contacts with politics in states in which judges are appointed and reappointed for limited terms through the political process. A possible subtitle for this Essay might be: ‘Can appointed judges have a normal life while complying with the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct within the political universe where they work and live?’

In the shadow of a Presidential veto, it will be impossible to repeal health care reform completely—despite the overwhelming number of additional seats Republicans won in the 2010 election.

Bottlenecks at any layer of the Internet—physical, social, application, or content^[1]—create opportunities for the exercise of undue power over the flow of information and ideas online. Corporate forces menace both user privacy and free expression on the Internet. Market concentration lets powerful business leaders develop unprecedented digital dossiers on users. Such concentration also allows leading companies to pervasively shape culture and politics, elevating some voices and silencing others.

Here we go, once more unto the breach, to face yet another battle in the near decade-long war over net neutrality. Some of the combatants have changed, and their positions have shifted slightly, but today we find essentially the same interests represented and the same arguments advanced. On one side, the major cable, Digital Subscriber Line (DSL), and wireless broadband providers continue to argue against increasing the Federal Communication Commision’s (FCC) authority over how these providers manage the flow of information through their pipes.

In this Essay, I argue that presidential criticism of the Supreme Court during a State of the Union address (SOTU) is different from other forms and forums of presidential criticism of the Court. This is because the State of the Union is different from other presidential addresses and because the Supreme Court is different from other state and federal courts.