The Faculty Lounge

Israel & Gaza

Here are some pieces I found useful for understanding the Palestinian struggle as incarnate in the latest conflict between Gaza and Israel:

Juan Cole, “Top Ten Myths about the Israeli Attack on Gaza”

Colin Dayan, “How Not to Talk about Gaza”

Richard Falk, “The Latest Gaza Catastrophe: Will They Ever Learn?”

Adam Goldberg, “Gilad Sharon, Son Of Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Writes Op-Ed: ‘We Need To Flatten Entire Neighborhoods In Gaza’”

Glenn Greenwald, “Stop pretending the US is an uninvolved, helpless party in the Israeli assault on Gaza”

Mehdi Hasan, “Ten Things You Need to Know About Gaza”

Nir Hasson, “Israeli peace activist: Hamas leader Jabari killed amid talks on long-term truce”

Meir Javendanfar, “A Gaza Ground Invasion Will End Badly”

Daoud Kuttab, “Israel’s Failed Strategy”

John Mearsheimer, “A Pillar Built on Sand”

Elizabeth Murray, “Likening Palestinians to Blades of Grass”

Vijay Prashad, “The Agonies of Susan Rice: Gaza and the Negroponte Doctrine”

Adam Shatz, “Why Israel Didn’t Win”

Robert Wright, “When Will the Economic Blockade of Gaza End?”

The latest from The New York Times: “Israel Warns of ‘Expansion’ as Attack Widens to Media Sites”

and the Los Angeles Times: “In Gaza, Palestinians Torn Between Pressing On and Ending Fight”  “Likelihood of Israel Launching Ground Invasion in Gaza Grows”

Image: Columns of smoke rise following an Israeli air strike in Gaza City, Nov. 14, 2012. Image by Adel Hana/AP Photo. Courtesy of Jadaliyya.

Katrina v. Sandy

   The final tally of destruction from these two storms is not yet in, but there are some striking differences already.

    Some of these stem from the physical differences between New Orleans and New York/New Jersey. As my wife says of her native city, New Orleans is a bowl that sits below sea level. Once the Katrina water came in, it wasn’t going to leave; instead, it had to be pumped out. Katrina didn’t blow by — she stayed, as a practical matter, for months. In distinction, the damaged areas of New York and New Jersey are mostly above sea level (at least for now). With the exception of basements, tunnels and other underground facilities, when the storm left, the water drained away by gravity. Consequently and fortunately, the recovery from Sandy should be more rapid if, for no other reason, as that recovery efforts were able to start immediately.

    Another difference worth noting is the comparative effectiveness of the local governments. As Huey Long said about his own state, “One of these days the people of Louisiana are going to get good government — and they ain't going to like it.” Neither Louisiana nor New Orleans had the reputation of having a particularly effective government in place before Katrina and the storm did nothing to challenge this conclusion. Both New Jersey and New York, on the other hand, appear in normal times to provide relatively competent government services. All of the state and local government leaders were there immediately after Sandy and had started to work on recovery. It seems very unlikely that the U.S. Army will have to be sent in to gain control of the situation as local police and state-commanded National Guard units were immediately deployed and have maintain order.

    But there is also a developing similarity that is disturbing. In the response to Katrina, many commented that support and money for restoration was far more available along the gulf coast of Mississippi than it was to the completely damaged City of New Orleans. The argument was made that casinos and rich people’s vacation homes were more important than housing for the less fortunate. Again with Sandy, Wall Street and other Manhattan neighborhoods seem to have gotten priority over less well off regions in the outer boroughs.

    I can’t say that I have drawn any firm conclusions from the comparison of these two devastating storms. What has been welcome is the fact that the lessons learned seven years ago in Katrina do not seem to have been lost as Sandy struck. Both the government and private sector response to Sandy has been immediate, and the pace of the overall recovery is heartening. We can only hope that the nor'easter expected today will not prove to be a major hindrance.

Volunteer Opportunities to Help with Hurricane Sandy Recovery Efforts

Folks in NYC can find a list of volunteer opportunities here.

Candy Caned (Or, The Outer Limits of Legitimate Property Security)

Two weeks ago, a man allegedly attempted to steal a Snickers™ bar from a 7-Eleven store in Brooklyn, New York. In response, three clerks accosted the man, tackled him, bit him, slammed his hand in the store’s doors, and stripped away his clothing, leaving him injured and nearly naked. The incident was captured by cameraphone video (warning: nudity, offensive language, and violence). The video shows the three store workers pushing, pulling, biting, and kicking the accused. (One can also see their faces when they realize that the incident is being recorded.) This incident has prompted a spirited discussion (at least among some New Yorkers) over whether the store clerks went “too far.” But what is “too far” in this context? Where does legitimate property security end and (illegitimate) violence begin?

Shoplifting is, admittedly, a major issue for the retail industry; theft accounts for billions of dollars in losses. And despite the economic effects of shoplifting, few shoplifters are ever caught. When shoplifters are apprehended, police intervention is not always available: Earlier this year, Dallas police announced that officers would not be dispatched for thefts totaling less than $50. Yet, while few people debate a retailer’s right to loss prevention, there is a line (in fact, a gulf) between loss prevention and brutality.

The 7-Eleven fracas has also prompted a conversation over whether the actions of the clerks were racially motivated. In recent years, New York City retailers have made news over their disparate treatment of suspected shoplifters of color. In 2006, Macy’s paid $600,000 to settle a case brought by former AG Eliot Spitzer over the retailer’s discriminatory treatment of black and Latino shoppers. In the Macy’s case, Latinos were five times more likely and blacks were three times more likely to be handcuffed than whites detained on allegations of shoplifting.

Troublingly, the 7-Eleven incident bears an eerie resemblance to another with which I have some familiarity. Imagine the scene: A girl visiting a chain grocery store allegedly puts a piece of candy into her pocket; before she leaves the store, the store manager detains her, binds her hands, and physically restrains her in view of passersby. The differences between this story and the 7-Eleven stripping are few: both involve national chains; both involve a single item of candy; both involve a retail employee responding to a suspected petty loss with disproportionate violence against a person of color. The primary difference between these incidents is that the 7-Eleven fracas occurred two weeks ago, while the situation involving the girl happened in 1930 in Jim Crow Georgia.

Charlie Mae Dowling, a twelve-year-old black girl, entered a Georgia A&P store, and picked up a single piece of candy from the floor. The store manager observed Dowling as she put the candy in her pocket; in response, he accosted her, forced her to pay for the candy, detained her, tied her hands together, physically forced her hands up above her head, and tied her to a rope suspended from the ceiling. The manager kept the girl in this position for two hours – during which time he threatened to kill her – until her mother arrived and paid the store $5 for the girl’s release. A civil jury later awarded Dowling money damages on the grounds that she had been "inhumanely assault[ed]" and "tortured" by the store manager (upheld on appeal at Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Dowling, 43 Ga.App. 549, 159 S.E. 609 (Ct. App. 1931)).

Research suggests that retail property security measures are differentially applied depending upon the race of the suspected shoplifter, with blacks and Latinos subject to physical restraints and criminal prosecutions more often than others. Without speculating over the motivations of these individual store clerks, I’d suggest that wherever violence is employed to protect property, we should be suspicious, as Daniel J. Sharfstein demonstrates in his brilliant article (on ssrn here) on the persuasive connection between property claims and violence against disfavored people. Sure, chasing down a thief may be an “expression of professionalism” (in Sharfstein’s words) for the store clerk, but I wonder how far a retailer should be allowed to go before liability attaches. In other words, are canings over candy ever within the bounds of legitimate property security?

Strictly Speaking, It’s Not Blaming the Victims for Our Economic Malaise, But Rather the Blaming of Those Who Support Public Policies that Help the Poor & Unemployed!

I admit to wondering if some arguments warrant any attention whatsoever, and not only because they emanate from the lofty perches of economics professors at the University of Chicago: “Casey Mulligan…claims that the continued weakness of employment in the US is due to policies introduced in 2008 and 2009, which ‘greatly enhanced the help given to the poor and unemployed — from expansion of food-stamp eligibility to enlargement of food-stamp benefits to payment of unemployment bonuses — sharply eroding (and, in some cases, fully eliminating) the incentives for workers to seek and retain jobs, and for employers to create jobs or avoid layoffs.’” This is actually a variation on an old and tired argument which rests on eminently contestable assumptions and silly but stubbornly persistent beliefs about human nature and moral psychology in the context of putative “economic efficiency” (I happen to believe these are historically associated with the Christian doctrine of ‘original sin’), well-illustrated by an infamous proposition from Charles Murray’s influential book, Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980 (1984): “People are not inherently hard working or moral. In the absence of countervailing influences, people will avoid work and be amoral”(146).* Please see John Quiggin’s post at Crooked Timber.

* For a characteristically lucid discussion, see Robert E. Goodin’s chapter on “Efficiency” in his Reasons for Welfare: The Political Theory of the Welfare State (1988): 229-256. See too the section by Goodin, “The Morality of Incentives and Deterrence,” in David Schmidtz and Robert E. Goodin, Social Welfare and Individual Responsibility: For and Against (1998): 172-189. As to the pernicious influence of at least one strain of Christian moral psychology—that is, one of Puritan provenance—see “The new medicine for poverty,” in R.H. Tawney’s classic but somewhat neglected study Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (1926): 253-273.

NYSBA *Will* Train Volunteers at Unspecified Date in Future -- Disaster Assistance Not Now, But Later

From a message sent this afternoon by New York State Bar Association President Seymour James, Jr.:

Throughout the affected areas, we anticipate a great need for assistance with legal issues related to FEMA applications, insurance, real estate matters, and other general legal matters, such as replacing missing wills and other documents. The State Bar is developing a training session for attorneys on disaster relief issues that will be webcast and archived for later viewing, in hopes that this resource will assist attorneys and local bar associations in their efforts to assist affected individuals.  I strongly encourage all of our members to consider taking advantage of this training, to become better equipped to provide pro bono services to people in need of assistance in the wake of the storm.  We will provide an update and additional details about the training as soon as they are finalized.

In addition, the NYSBA Lawyer Referral and Information Service has created a dedicated number (1-800-699-5636) for people in need of help, and is currently recruiting attorneys to provide free telephone consultations to individuals affected by the storm.  There is a particular need for attorneys with insurance, landlord/tenant, co-op and condo, or FEMA appeals experience, as well as those who can handle general practice matters.  If you are able to help, please visit www.nysba.org/DisasterVolunteerSandy and complete a volunteer form.

We are also providing a free non-accredited informational video on emergency preparedness strategies for attorneys.  The program – Disaster Planning and Emergency Preparedness: Best Practices for Solos – was designed to help attorneys prepare for unforeseen crises that can jeopardize their practices and includes helpful information and steps to take following a disaster.  The video will be available, free of charge, through the month of November.  You can view it at: www.nysba.org/DisasterPlanningProgram.

 

The Economics of Well-Being & Unhappiness

The following (with apologies to Faculty Lounge readers who may have already read it) is my comment (with added ‘references and further reading’) to Maxine Eichner’s post at Concurring Opinions, “What Money Can’t Buy: The Massive Shift of Hours from Families to Work:”

The cornucopia of conspicuous consumption promised by capitalism and the material and psychological insecurities intrinsic to the labor market, particularly in a nation with a fragile history of organized labor and a prevailing neoliberal ideology unabashedly hostile to organized labor as such, does indeed hold out both the carrot and stick to account for an obsession with work. And in a political and cultural climate in which those on the Right are motivated to dismantle the weakest type of existing welfare regimes in the northern hemisphere (i.e., its ‘liberal’ variant, which is outperformed on any number of criteria by its corporatist and social democratic counterparts) and the corresponding economic philosophy that justifies its existence, namely, Keynesian (let alone neo-Keynesian) welfare economics, nothing should surprise us about the dominant ideologies of work and leisure (in which these two activities are conceived in pathologically polar terms such that work has precious little of the connotations of leisure as part of eudaimonia or human flourishing on the one hand, and leisure is afflicted with passivity, mind-numbing entertainment, escape from reality, or feverish hedonism on the other). It is Keynesian economics that heretofore has softened the periodic blows endemic to capitalist economic cycles: its manias, crashes, and panics, and calls to mind Ian Shapiro’s lament that

“[t]he ambiguous moral status of Keynesianism and welfare economics has always inhered in the fact that they appeal to the short-term interests of the disadvantaged (such as unemployed workers and firms on the verge of bankruptcy during recessions) by ensuring subsistence, creating employment, and expanding credit, yet these policies are geared in the medium term to sustaining the system which generates those very disadvantages—hence the ironic force of Joan Robinson’s quip that the one thing worse than being exploited is not being exploited at all.”

The majority of those politically well-positioned to lead us out of our current economic malaise into an economic world significantly different from the capitalist one remain infatuated with the “aristocracy of capital” and unperturbed by the utter commercialization or commodification of all social relations. Economic power remains hostage to the prioritization of the welfare of the wealthiest as both a necessary and sufficient condition to satisfying the general welfare and the generalizable interests of the many. Material uncertainty and psychological insecurity are part and parcel, the bone and marrow, of labor markets determined by the terms and conditions of private investment and the deleterious effects of finance capitalism. The distorted and artificial needs and the individually and socially harmful desires generated by hyper-industrialized casino capitalism finds the masses in a state in which they feel an overwhelming need to be psychologically indemnified by the possession and consumption of as many goods and services as possible, in a socio-economic world in which conspicuous consumption exists side-by-side with recalcitrant pockets and regions afflicted with inexcusable relative and absolute poverty.

Even before the latest precipitous economic downturn, there was a growing consensus among political scientists about the need to account, in Robert Lane’s words, for the “combination of growing unhappiness and depression, interpersonal and institutional distrust, and weakened companionship in advanced market democracies, in which people are, with important exceptions, reasonably well-off.” Or, as the philosopher Daniel M. Haybron notes,

“The United States is by a wide margin, among the most affluent nations in human history, and many Americans enjoy unprecedented freedom to shape their lives—for those individuals, a great success in moral and economic terms. Yet no one ever accused us of ‘knowing how to live.’ This is perhaps because, arguably, we don’t. Surveys find an overwhelming majority of Americans reporting that Americans have badly placed priorities. And there is no evidence that Americans grew any happier over the recent decades that witnessed astonishing growth in material standards of living. Self-reported happiness has remained essentially flat, while rates of suicide, depression, and other pathologies have soared.”

Where is the Red Cross? Not in Lower Manhattan

Most of Lower Manhattan heads into the fifth day without power, water or heat.  Electricity is expected to come on over the weekend in Manhattan, but some other parts of the tri-state area may be without power for weeks.  The National Guard was visible yesterday, handing out food and water at designated areas.  But the American Red Cross is nowhere to be found.  To be sure, much of "disaster relief" comes long after the disaster has occurred, but in the meantime, there are lots and lots of people with real, concrete needs. 

After September 11, people poured into Lower Manhattan wanting to help.  Now?  Nobody. 

Supreme Court Fellows Program

The deadline for applying for a U.S. Supreme Court Fellowship is November 30 (apply here). 

Over the past forty years, law professors have been well represented among the Fellows contributing to the work of the Supreme Court, the Federal Judicial Ctr., the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and (more recently) the U.S. Sentencing Commission. This is a great opportunity for a sabbatical/leave year for profs whose scholarship would benefit from the experience.

Good luck!

Balloting Behind (Jail) Bars

Thanks to Al and Dan for inviting me to sit a spell in the Lounge! I have been an avid reader for years, and I'm super excited about the opportunity. As Al mentioned, I'm writing a dissertation on slavery and penal systems in the antebellum South - one might think that this credential qualifies me to regularly solve Al's Civil War trivia questions (and yet, one would be wrong . . . I've only gotten one of Al's trivia questions right (!)). In any event, I'm looking forward to talking race, prisons, and property with this group.

First up, jailed prisoners and the franchise. This week, the L.A. Sheriff's Department is bringing the ballot inside the county jail. As part of an initiative to facilitate jailed detainees' access to the franchise, the Department recruited volunteers to assist jailed inmates with registration forms and absentee ballots. While hailed by some as a laudable development, some are questioning whether law enforcement agents are qualified to accurately ascertain eligibility and administer ballots for this election. This is especially tricky in California, where AB 109 (last year's "realignment" bill enacted in the wake of the Supreme Court affirming the prison population reduction order in Coleman v. Plata) has shifted jurisdiction over thousands of convicted nonviolent offenders to local jails. The populations currently being held in the state's local jails, therefore, do not share the same status - some are awaiting trial while others have been convicted and are serving sentences- and many do not share the same eligibility, an issue that may give rise to ballot integrity problems down the road. Several years ago, the ACLU compiled information about the myriad challenges of custodial voting - let's hope LA County is familiar with this history and its relative successes.

As an aside, one of the "surprises" noted by department personnel interviewed for this article was that several of the jailees registering to vote signed up as Republicans. The characterization of this demographic tidbit as a "surprise" brings to mind the work of Professor Janai Nelson of St. John's University School of Law. Nelson has an article forthcoming in the Florida Law Review (on ssrn here) in which she argues that felon disenfranchisement laws "reflect a misguided perception" of how a criminally detained or incarcerated individual might vote. Although not limited to the partisan question of whether this population might vote a Republican or Democratic ticket, Nelson's analysis is worth a read. Have criminal disenfranchisement schemes persisted for so long in the U.S. because of a presumption of how members of this population might vote if given the opportunity? (Nelson suggests that the answer is yes.). I'd love to hear your thoughts!

Document “retention” policy, anyone?

As those of you who travel with American Airlines are no doubt aware, the airline has been experiencing abnormal delays and cancelations of late.  According to AA, the cause is a surge in pilots taking sick time and requesting minor repairs, often at the scheduled departure time. Not surprisingly, the pilots’ union denies the charges. 

One Mile at a Time blogs about a number of posts at the Airline Pilot Forums.  This thread caught my eye:

 

How is the operation running?   Just wondering how the metal is moving over there.

-- A bit sluggish...4 canx today at DFW for lack of crews. Many delays and canx this week.

 

-- 16 flights canx in MIA today for lack of crews.

 

-- The term sheet is being implemented as we speak.

 And as always, the way to go is follow the FAR's to the letter, as well as company rules... like giving T-storms 20 nm space, thorough pre-flights, conscientious write-ups, economical taxi and flight speeds, meticulous check list procedures, no-fault go-arounds, etc etc etc.

Of course, fatigue is a hot-button topic w/NASA and the FAA. Got to wathc those mental health issues too. And it's a good time to finally get that carpal tunnel surgery.

(emphasis mine)

 

Document retention policy, anyone?

Call for Articles: Arkansas Law Review

From my friend (and Arkansas law professor) Dustin Buehler:

The Arkansas Law Review is pleased to announce a call for papers in conjunction with the 2012 Annual Symposium to be held on Friday, November 9 in Fayetteville, Arkansas.  The topic of the symposium will focus on the mortgage foreclosure crisis.  The University of Arkansas School of Law is delighted to host Professor Dale Whitman as a Visiting Professor for the 2012-2013 academic year.  His scholarship has informed the direction of our symposium.

The first issue of Volume 66 will be devoted to the Symposium and will be published in early spring 2013. We encourage articles analyzing both the causes and effects of the crisis from a regulatory perspective and a homeowner perspective.  We would also appreciate forward-looking articles that posit solutions and preventive measures.    

Authors should submit an abstract and a cover letter to rewright@email.uark.edu.  The deadline for submissions of article proposals is Monday, October 8, 2012.  Please feel free to email Robin Wright at rewright@email.uark.edu with any questions.

Contracts v. Bankruptcy (or Alien v. Predator?)

From our friend and bankruptcy expert, Regent law professor Scott Pryor:

When I teach bankruptcy law I regularly invoke the competing themes of property and contract. Without belaboring the argument, property is a baseline concept from which American common law generally and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution generate substantive legal protections. While I also believe the right to contract is natural to humans, I argued in Principled Pluralism and Contract Remedies (abstract here) that state-sanctioned remedies for breach of contract were discretionary. In other words, a polity need not provide a judicial forum for rectification of rights arising from breaches. In case anyone wonders how someone who teaches contract law could continue to justify collecting his paycheck, I went on to argue that even if not required to do so, civil governments have the legitimate discretionary authority to provide judicial remedies for breaches of contracts, and that providing such remedies contributes to human flourishing. The well-nigh universal regime of contract remedies for contract breaches seems to bear out my conclusion.

Two clauses of Article I of the U.S. Constitution are relevant to the intersection of property, contract remedies, and bankruptcy in the American context. First, Section 10, clause 1 provides that "No State shall pass any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts" while Section 8, clause 4 empowers Congress "To establish uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States." Oh, and we can't forget about the Tenth Amendment, which, when it comes to the system of dual state-federal sovereignty in the United States, preserves (at least sometimes) the States from federal interference.

Taken together we can conclude that (i) states cannot impair remedies for breach of contract (i.e., cannot discharge contract debts) but that (ii) the federal government can provide for discharge of debts while (iii) neither can take away one's property and, finally, (iv) when it comes to debts of municipalities, the federal bankruptcy powers cannot interfere with them without the consent of their State.

So what? Let's consider the bankruptcy of the City of Stockton, California. Like many municipalities (and states, for that matter) Stockton owes its retired employees far more in pensions than it can hope to pay. (Check the news report here and see here for my previous post on the topic.  For a slightly different take on the immediate cause of Stockton's financial crisis, check the NYT article here.)

Stockton filed bankruptcy to avoid paying the benefits it had contracted to pay but could no longer afford. But wait, the retirees argued, Stockton is an instrumentality of the State of California and, as we have seen, the U.S. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 10 specifically prohibits the states from messing around with contracts. While admitting that the federal government's constitutional bankruptcy power can discharge most contractual obligations, the retirees asserted that it cannot be permitted to do so in Stockton's case without contradicting the constitutional text. The irresistible force meets the immovable object.

An ingenious argument but Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein didn't buy it. (Judge Klein's lengthy opinion, Assoc. of Retired Employees, et al. v. City of Stockton (In re City of Stockton) can be found at 2012 WL 3193588.) First, he observed that § 904 of the Bankruptcy Code clearly prohibits the court from granting any interim relief to the retirees. Second, and much more fully reasoned (in anticipation of an appeal, one suspects), Judge Klein concluded that the Bankruptcy Clause in effect trumps the Contracts Clause, at least in this case. In short, the City of Stockton can "interfere" with its "Obligation of Contracts" because the State of California has permitted it to file for relief under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Contracts Clause is a limit on the States; the Bankruptcy Clause permits the federal government to do what the States cannot; and the Tenth Amendment implies that a State can acquiesce to this exercise of federal power. QED. But stay tuned; one suspects there's more to come.

Voting rights and discrimination in Texas legislative districts

With election season in full swing and many states running tight races, voting districts are primed to be a key factor in determining control of power positions.  Texas is already in the crossfire as a unanimous court rejected the lines drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature as discriminatory towards Latino/Hispanic and Black/African-American citizens and found the plan in violation of the Voting Rights Act.   The ruling is unlikely to effect the upcoming elections: according to the Huffington Post's roundup, "voters in Texas this November will use interim political maps drawn last year by a different three-judge panel in San Antonio." 2014, however, is a different story with a heated fight likely ahead and possible appeal to the Supreme Court.

Apart from the ruling itself, the path to the redistricting is itself interesting.  Because of the state's history of discrimination, the Voting Rights Act requires Texas to get approval from the Department of Justice before making changes to its districts.  But state attorneys took a different route, bypassing the Justice Department and going before a federal three-judge panel to get clearance.  Would following the normal procedure really have been worse? Did Texas' attorneys make the 'right' risk/reward calculation?

The Los Angeles Times coverage is here, and the Huffington Post weighs in over here. 

Kelsey's Law on cellphone data

Has anyone been following the debates surrounding the recent enactment by a number of states of laws that require cellphone carriers to provide police with a customer's location information in case of emergency?  I saw a news report today that Missouri is the 8th state to enact such a law.  It seems to me like a good idea despite privacy concerns and concerns about possible legal liability of cellphone carriers for disclosing the information.  But I suppose a lot would depend on how the laws were actually drafted.  What is the best way to draft the concept of 'emergency' to protect civil rights concerns but still allow the police to investigate promptly and effectively in situations where time may be of the essence?  Has anyone compared the drafting of the various state acts on this point?  I would be interested in your thoughts.

Braucher on Law School Debt Repayment

Commercial law expert Jean Braucher has a thoughtful post on law school debt repayment over at Credit Slips, entitled "Repaying Debt for Law School:  Federal Programs Make It Doable, Not Easy."

IP Scholars Forum

If you have an interest in the intersection of intellectual property and public health, then you may wish to attend the Sixth Annual IP Scholars Forum, sponsored by our friends at the University of Akron School of Law’s Center for Intellectual Property & Technology in October.  Details here.

NFIB v. Sebelius

I will leave it to the constitutional scholars among us to comment on the decision itself. I only have one question to ask: Who out there predicted that the opinion upholding the mandate would have Chief Justice Roberts as the swing vote?

Wallabies Getting High

For all you fans of things Australian, this story could only have come from down under.  Apparently wallabies are getting high in Tasmania's legal opium fields and creating crazy crop circles.  I wonder if M. Night Shyamalan has looked into securing the movie rights for the story yet?

Law & Morality: John Edwards' Defense Works

In closing arguments, John Edwards' attorney argued that he committed sins, not crimes.  With one not guilty verdict and a mistrial on the other five counts due to a deadlocked jury, it appears that his defense worked.  This explicit defense separating law from morality could be good fodder for Jurisprudence courses and other dicussions about the overlap between law and morality.

For an interesting read on how the National Enquirer broke the story, here's an article on Huffington Post by David Perel, then-Editor-in-Chief of the National Enquirer.  The article details the investigation and provides Perel's take on what this saga says about our presidential politics and the ability to find truth in courtrooms.  Here's an excerpt:

Edwards, Hunter and Young retained separate counsel in an attempt to stop the Enquirer's expose of the affair, the pregnancy and the money trail. None of them knew that for months a team of Enquirer reporters, living in Young's gated community, watched Hunter and Young daily and had knowledge of Hunter often dining at the Young's house. So when Andrew Young and his attorneys contended that HE was the father of Hunter's baby, incredulity was replaced by laughter from my team. Yes, we were supposed to believe that he brought his pregnant mistress home regularly for dinner with his wife and children.

I can imagine The Who's I'm Free running through Edwards' brain head right about now.