Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses a baseball play during Game 2 of the National League Division Series to illustrate the legal concept of legal rules as written as distinguished from legal rules enforced.
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean gives a preview of Bob Woodward’s new book, The Last of the President’s Men, which recounts the experiences of Alex Butterfield in the Nixon White House. Dean explains the origin and significance of the title with respect to the subject matter and provides his insight into the book’s telling of Butterfield’s story.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton praises the women who are stepping forward publicly to accuse Bill Cosby of rape and sexual assault. Hamilton points out that despite the presence of restrictive statutes of limitations in most states, many survivors are stepping forward to seek justice and raising awareness.
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.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman describes California’s recently passed Fair Pay Act, which promises to help alleviate the equal pay gap where the federal government has fallen short. Grossman explains the key findings by the California legislature and the new law changes the landscape for female workers in that state.
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.
Vikram David Amar, law professor and dean of the University of Illinois College of Law, identifies four key issues to watch in the Supreme Court’s 2015-2015 Term. As Amar discusses here, these issues center around: (1) public labor unions, (2) affirmative action, (3) abortion rights, and (4) the death penalty.
George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan describes how Donald Trump’s comments about taxes and the national debt reveal that he is hardly any different from the other Republican candidates. Buchanan argues that, in fact, Trump is in line with mainstream Republican with respect to his views on taxes.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses the #ShoutYourAbortion movement intended to destigmatize abortion. Dorf describes how people “coming out” as being gay or lesbian helped destigmatize sexual orientation, and how coming out as having a disability or disease has helped destigmatize those statuses, as well. Dorf cautions that while the #ShoutYourAbortion movement could resemble these other movements, it may also be different in some important ways.
Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies discusses the inviolable right of human dignity and its essential role as a condition of criminal justice.
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean describes congressional Republicans’ continued war on women, this time as manifested in their treatment of Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton comments on the recent visit by Pope Francis to Philadelphia on the ten-year anniversary of the release of the landmark Grand Jury Report on Sexual Abuse in the Philadelphia Archdiocese. Hamilton argues that now is the time for state legislators to eliminate statutes of limitations for civil sex abuse suits and revive those claims that have expired due to short statutes of limitations.
Hofstra University law professor Joanna Grossman discusses a recent decision by a New Jersey appellate court that she argues illustrates a pattern of courts erroneously failing to see the illegal and harmful stereotyping embodied in sex-specific dress codes.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on the first of a wave of litigation sparked by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Rotunda points out that in some cases, lower courts handling these cases have not adequately discussed or distinguished the relevant cases.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses the sexism Donald Trump displayed during the night of the second Republican presidential debate. Colb points out that Trump’s words reveal his hateful and exploitative attitude toward women and is hopeful that people are prepared to vote accordingly.
University of Illinois law professor and dean Vikram David Amar comments on a recent decision by a federal district court in Arizona addressing a challenge to two parts of Arizona’s SB 1070 statute, which attempts to deal with immigration stresses in that state. Amar argues that the court’s reasoning on both claims was confused and unpersuasive and that the results should have been inverted. That is, Amar suggests that the court should have upheld the equal protection challenge to the “Show Me Your Papers” provision and rejected the First Amendment challenge to the Day Laborer provisions.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses the second GOP presidential debate and the candidates' varied, often concerning, interpretations of the U.S. Constitution.
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.
Author and former counsel to the president John W. Dean discusses the second GOP presidential candidate debate of September 16, 2015—a major political event of the 2016 presidential election cycle.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamliton comments on the quandary of at-risk children in religious groups like the ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities, and cautions against government and political rhetoric that exalts and protects such lifestyles.
