Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb considers the perspectives of both sides of the controversy over a relatively new California law requiring licensed pregnancy centers to prominently post a notice about the availability of free or low-cost abortion, contraception, and prenatal care. Colb offers a compelling narrative to illustrate each perspective, ultimately concluding that while she personally agrees with one side neither is “right” in a moral sense.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf explores the relationship between renewed discussions about artificial intelligence (AI) and the rights of non-human animals. Dorf argues that our current portrayals of AI reflect guilt over our disregard for the interests of the billions of sentient animals we exploit, torture, and kill in the here and now.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb uses a recent court dispute over a contract governing a divorced couple’s frozen embryos as the basis for considering some important issues that would arise in a frozen embryo dispute with no contract. Colb points out that resolving such a dispute would require careful balancing of the right of one party to procreate, on the one hand, and the right of the other party not to procreate, on the other.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on the concept of the “appearance of impropriety” that affects the regulation of the conduct of judges. Rotunda looks specifically at judicial election campaigns and points out that the statistical data do not support a conclusion a tit for tat relationship between campaign contributions and judicial decisions.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies observes that despite growing recognition of the need for comprehensive reform of the American criminal justice system, there are little to no policy changes on the horizon that could even potentially effect such comprehensive reform.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies calls on us to reflect on the intensifying attacks in the United States against Islam and against the Black Lives Matter movement. Margulies argues that the attacks derive from a common source and that much can be learned from examining them together.
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.
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.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies continues his discussion of the role of dignity as a condition of a legitimate criminal justice system. Margulies argues that it is dignity that saves us from the conceit that we may decide who gets to be human, but he laments that many people are not yet ready to give up that conceit.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb considers why pro-life advocates often do not champion contraception. Colb looks at two philosophical approaches to morality—deontology and consequentialism—to better understand this observed phenomenon.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda discusses a report drafted by the Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers finding that state regulation of lawyer advertising involves far more rules and complexity than is necessary. Rotunda points out that in light of the purpose of such rules, the report recommends states that have a single rule that prohibits false and misleading communications about a lawyer or the lawyer’s services.
Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies discusses the inviolable right of human dignity and its essential role as a condition of criminal justice.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies offers an overview of our current criminal justice system and proposes a philosophy essential for the implementation of its imperative transformation, improvement, and legitimacy.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses the apparent conflict between the social norm that women’s breasts should be covered in public and the legal right of women (in most states) to be top-free in public.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda discusses instances of federal judges acting in manners inconsistent with their responsibilities.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb draws upon the outrage many people felt in response to a video allegedly showing Planned Parenthood officials discussing the sale of fetal body parts and tissue from abortions (video that was subsequently revealed to be edited so as to be intentionally misleading) in order to discuss a different area in which tissue and parts are bought and sold without evoking such broad outrage.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda discusses a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit with respect to the disqualification of a lawyer from representing a client due to a conflict of interest. Rotunda cautions that the decision, if read broadly, could signal major risks for patent firms, but he argues that the decision need not be read so broadly.
Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies describes the abysmal conditions under which Tariq Ba Odah is suffering at Guantanamo, despite being cleared by every national security agency.
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean laments the willingness—even enthusiasm—of Bill Cosby’s legal defense team to engage in ethically questionable tactics with respect to Cosby’s victims, including using the media to defame the victims.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda describes the apparent confusion in many jurisdictions over the phrase “moral turpitude” with respect to whether and when attorneys are subject to discipline. Rotunda points out that while many states have adopted the model rules (which, in their current form reject the prohibition against “illegal conduct involving moral turpitude”), these states’ courts still rely on the vague standard when applying the rules.