Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda questions the practice of both the Hillary Clinton Campaign and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to employ unpaid interns. Rotunda argues that in both instances, the interns do not receive the type of training or education from the experience that is required in order for an unpaid internship not to violate federal labor laws.
Verdict
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses the claim that IQ scores of minorities should be upwardly adjusted for the purpose of eligibility for the death penalty. Drawing upon an article on the issue by Robert Sanger, Colb argues that even if the practice of adjusting IQ scores were scientifically supported (which it is not), doing so for death penalty purposes constitutes invidious race discrimination in violation of the federal Constitution.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan cautions against responding to terrorism by reflexively spending on security and military. Buchanan argues that such rash decisions can lead to high human and economic costs.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf comments on recent protests against administrators on various campuses across the United States. Dorf argues that the protests reflect the failure of campus administrators, faculty, and students to follow through on promoting diversity beyond the admissions process.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies considers what it means to represent someone who is widely reviled—such as an alleged terrorist.
John W. Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, reflects on the life of former Senator Fred Thompson, who passed away from a recurrence of lymphatic cancer on November 1, 2015. Dean describes how he and Thompson met, when the latter served as minority counsel to the Senate Watergate Committee, and their repeated crossed paths over the following decades.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton predicts that the release of the motion picture Spotlight—which is about the cover up of child sex abuse by priests in the Boston Archdiocese—will force the hands of politicians and candidates across the country with respect to their positions on these issues.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb considers whether it is morally consistent for a person to be an ethical vegan and also to be pro-choice with respect to abortion.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses New York’s enactment of the Women’s Equality Agenda, which nearly coincides with the 200th birthday of women’s rights champion Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Grossman describes the history behind the Women’s Equality Act as well as the provisions it codifies.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda argues for the use of cameras in the U.S. Supreme Court to improve transparency and access for greater numbers people.
Vikram David Amar, law professor and dean at Illinois Law, and Michael Schaps, a California civil litigation attorney, discuss Spokeo v. Robins, in which the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the nature of injury required for a plaintiff to avail herself of the federal court system. Specifically, Amar and Schaps describe the justices’ various perspectives on the issue and the possible origins and significance of these perspectives.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan considers the importance of a president himself (or herself) actually having deep knowledge of issues. Buchanan draws upon the presidencies of Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, Obama, and others, in concluding that the president’s advisors are crucial in determining the tone of a president’s impact.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf comments on the memoranda that supported the legality of the 2011 Navy SEAL raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan. Dorf argues that these “bin Laden” memos are, in at least one respect, as bad as the infamous “torture memos” that authorized the Bush Administration to use “enhanced interrogation” techniques on prisoners suspected of terrorism.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil Buchanan explains why budget deal that temporarily addresses the debt ceiling issue is really a time bomb that will go off on the next president, if he or she is a Democrat.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies describes one of the bedrock principles of a legitimate criminal justice system: the obligation of government to be fair and even handed. Margulies describes several examples of how governments have fallen short in this respect and argues that without even-handed justice, there cannot be a truly legitimate criminal justice system.
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean strongly critiques the House Select Committee on Benghazi for conducting itself without decency or civility. Dean compares the committee’s hearings to the so-called Army-McCarthy hearing of June 9, 1954, in which Republican Senator Joe McCarthy charged that the Army had been infiltrated by communists.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton celebrates the ten-year anniversary of the groundbreaking 2005 Grand Jury Report on Child Sex Abuse in the Philadelphia Archdiocese. She argues that while that document pales in comparison to the Australian Commission’s report on abuse in that country, it is still hugely significant and should serve as the benchmark for responsible prosecutorial initiative on clergy sex abuse in the United States.
Sherry Colb, a law professor at Cornell Law School, discusses the moral status of perpetrating violence to express opposition to abortion and to animal killing and cruelty. Colb argues there are nonviolent means of furthering pro-life and pro-animal rights movements, violence for these purposes is an unnecessary and thus immoral option.
Hofstra University law professors Joanna Grossman and Barbara Stark discuss a new law in New York that will reform alimony law and reverse a longstanding rule of marital property in that state. Grossman and Stark describe New York’s unusual family law history and explain how it arrived at this new law, which goes into effect in part this week.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda the lead-up and history of the U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision—in which the Court in 1857 held that African Americans could not be American citizens and therefore could not sue in federal court. Rotunda explains how the case progressed through the state and subsequently federal courts, and discusses how the decision affected some of the justices sitting on the Court at the time.