#michael dorf

[itsjessnyc]

Presented by Michael Dorf, this new location is spectacular! The space is enormous 😍🤩😍 This spot is already perfect for social distancing indoor dining -- they have Comedy night on Mondays. LIVE MUSIC Fri-Sun 630-9pm

I'm definitely going back for dinner! You all need to make reservations today! #citywinerynewyork #citywinery #citywinerypier57 #pier57 #michaeldorf #mdp #restaurant #indoordining #covidlife #saftyfirst #hospitality #cw #cwnyc #LifeWithJess @kckreations #truefriendship

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CHq2N8Wj-gJ/?igshid=1me81idy55owv

[bigtickhk]

Review | City Winery’s Michael Dorf looks back at his ups and downs in the music business

In “Indulge Your Senses,” the Knitting Factory mastermind talks about cracking the code on catering to serious music fans.

Indulge Your Senses: Scaling Intimacy in a Digital World by Michael Dorf https://amzn.to/2J38CmU

[kenpiercemedia]

Breaking: City Winery's New York Flagship To Relocate By 2020

Breaking: City Winery’s New York Flagship To Relocate By 2020

The Press Release: City Winery’s 30,000-square-foot location on Varick Street has been purchased by Disney, forcing the business to relocate. City Winery New York was the first of 6 national locations and been in the Hudson Square neighborhood for a decade. Disney acquired the entire block from the Trinity Church Real Estate-owned site to build a one million-square foot New York headquarters.

“W…

View On WordPress

[justia]

Mass Shootings and the Supreme Court

Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf describes the underappreciated role of the US Supreme Court in shaping public opinion and discussion of gun regulations. Specifically, Dorf explains that the Court's seminal decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago have symbolic importance beyond their literal holdings, giving gun rights proponents strong rhetoric, though not strong legal basis, for an absolutist position.

[justia]

Can Congress Ban Bump Stocks?

Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf explains why, if Congress wants to ban or further regulated the sale of “bump stocks,” it should act quickly or risk missing the window in which regulation is possible. Dorf points out that the test the Supreme Court uses for whether weapons count as “arms” protected by the Second Amendment is whether they are in “common use,” not whether they are “dangerous and unusual weapons.” Dorf argues that so long as bump stocks remain legal, people can accumulate them, and if enough people do that before they are banned, there could be so many in circulation as to qualify as in common use, thereby falling within the scope of Second Amendment protection.

[justia]

Supreme Court of India Protects a Right to Privacy

Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on a recent decision by the Supreme Court of India in which that court ruled that the Constitution of India protects a right of privacy. Dorf explains the significance of the decision not only for the largest democracy in the world, but also for people in other constitutional democracies, including the United States.

[justia]

The Educational Function of Kabuki Confirmation Hearings

Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf explains the value of the confirmation hearing of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, despite the tradition in such hearings of the nominee evading answering questions about the most divisive legal issues of the day. Dorf argues that the Gorsuch hearing provides a unique opportunity for bipartisan repudiation of President Trump’s irresponsible attacks on the judiciary.

[justia]

Did Trump’s “Muslim Ban” Talk Permanently Taint His Immigration Policy?

Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf considers whether President Trump’s new executive order on immigration, anticipated to be issued this week, will fare better than Executive Order 13769, which temporarily banned nationals of seven predominantly Muslim countries and all refugees from entering the United States. Dorf discusses Trump’s past public statements advocating for a Muslim ban during his presidential campaign and applies the factors courts may use in evaluating whether those statements can be considered evidence of Trump’s motives for his actions as president, should the constitutionality of his executive order be challenged in court again.