A living will is a written statement that controls health care decisions that can be made on your behalf.  That’s pretty important.
To learn more about what a living will is (and what it is not), how a living will works, and what alternatives exist for executing a living will, you will want to read my February newsletter.  It’s available now in the publications section of deconcinimcdonald.com.  

The Instapundit has an interesting column in USA Today analyzing recent comments by Justice Thomas on the constitutional underpinnings of Supreme Court case law in defamation cases.  Justice Thomas suggested that the rule established by the Supreme Court, that a defamation claim by a public official or public figure must include proof that the defamer acted with knowing or reckless disregard of the truth (the so-called “actual malice” standard), may not be required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
To lawyers like me who are interested in First Amendment law, it’s an intriguing question.   

Dig the fringed suede jacket.  

​I wasn’t aware that some federal lawmakers have decided companies should be prohibited from buying back shares until the companies compensate all of their employees at the level that lawmakers deem appropriate.  What a great idea!  Now, why don’t those geniuses also just dictate what products companies can produce and set prices for which they can sell those products?  At least one of them seems to think that these would in fact be appropriate exercises of our central government’s authority.  
As an aside, the linked item suggests that a Republican senator has “criticized buybacks.”  Here’s what that senator actually said:

​One can agree with that statement without supporting the idea that the federal government should dictate when a company can repurchase its shares.

Can your children be forced to continue paying your timeshare maintenance fees after you die?  It’s an assertion I have heard, but since I’ve never been involved in the administration of an estate where that claim was actually made, I haven’t ever looked at a timeshare contract to see if they make that claim.  My off-the-cuff answer is no, because the beneficiaries of your estate could simply disclaim that “asset.”
I put “asset” in quotes because timeshares in my opinion are a liability, not an asset.  I do know people who have them and love them, however.  I don’t know if their children will share that enthusiasm.  

I just realized that all the talk about the high-speed train in California is a great excuse to make a reference to my favorite Creedence Clearwater Revival song, Lodi.  Since the stupid high speed train to nowhere is only going to reach as far north as Merced, the narrator of that song is still going to be waiting for that “fast train back to where [he] lives” (he never says where that is).  If he was lucky enough to have been stuck in Merced instead of Lodi, however, he could at least use the high-speed train to get to Bakersfield, where another song narrator “ran twenty red lights in His honor.”  Remember that one?

I have been trying to ignore all the talk about the “Green New Deal” (acronym GND), but the Antiplanner has an interesting discussion of what it could mean for land use planning.  He thinks it will mean a push to increase density of housing, i.e. toward more multi-family and less single-family housing.  He also thinks it’s wrong to presume that increased density will result in greater energy efficiency, and presents data supporting his opinion, although he excludes whatever impact greater density might have on energy consumption for transportation.  
All of which, for me, begs the question: if I want a single-family house, should I be deprived of that desire for the greater good?  On a whole host of issues, it seems like that is what the GND is all about.  

​Actually, his comment isn’t about the First Amendment at all, but about taxation and government power.  He cay say it, because of the First Amendment, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.  Here it is:

​His vision of government is to take money from disfavored constituencies and have the government, in its benevolence, apply that money (ostensibly) for the benefit of favored constituencies.  He thinks that the “wrong” people have an unlimited supply of money, and that taking it from them won’t have any effect on the forces that produced that money (or if does have an effect, that effect is desirable).  

I particularly enjoy it when an attempt to control behavior is invalidated because it violates free speech.  I’m not sure why this decision invalidating a law mandating warnings in advertising for high-calorie drinks doesn’t have broader application, however.
Via Overlawyered.