A few times over the past week colleagues have come by my office with questions about the final judgment rule. Seems like it might be a good time to reblog two videos I created on this very subject!
I’ve been a great fan of President Theodore Roosevelt since I was a child. I may have to revisit my admiration for Teddy, however, after reading law prof Jeff Rosen’s fascinating post about Teddy’s “demagogic attacks” on judicial independence–and how his successor, William Howard Taft, responded to them. Rosen writes:
Judicial independence was the cause to which Taft was most devoted, as President and Chief Justice. Taft fought the election of 1912 as a crusade against Theodore Roosevelt’s demagogic attacks on judicial independence. In February, 1912, Roosevelt alarmed Taft by attacking individual judges by name and endorsing the right of the people to overturn state court decisions as well as recalling state court judges.
Taft responded that “the charter of democracy” Roosevelt proposed “advocated a change in our judicial system” that “would be dangerous to the body politic.” The recall of judges and their decisions, he said, “would necessarily destroy the keystone of our liberties by taking away judicial independence, and by exposing to the chance of one popular vote, questions of the continuance of our constitutional guarantees of life, liberty and property and the pursuit of happiness.” After delivering this fervent address, Taft retreated to his private railway car and expressed anguish to a journalist, “Roosevelt was my closest friend,” he declared, with his head in his hands. And then he began to weep.
Judicial independence is under attack once again. How President, later Chief Justice, Taft responded to Roosevelt’s attacks on judicial independence is a lesson for how we should respond to similar attacks today.
From the shameless marketing department:
Please join former Supreme Court Justices Peter Zarella, Ian McLachlan and several noted appellate attorneys for an illuminating panel discussion on the value of including appellate counsel in your trial team.
When: April 26, 2018
Time: 11:00 am to 2:00 pm
Where: One State Street, Hartford, CT
The country awaits the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, which concerns whether a professional cake maker can refuse, on First Amendment grounds, to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple. Georgetown law professor Paul Smith has this moving post on the very real personal costs that members of the LGBTQ community will suffer if the court decides the case in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Money quote:
People in this country have every right to personally disapprove of my marriage. But they should not have a right to translate those beliefs into exclusionary policies when they open a business like the Masterpiece Cakeshop. They can choose who to associate with in their private lives. But not when they open a business serving the public. That is where we have always drawn the line in this country, and that shouldn’t change just because a purveyor of really excellent wedding cakes asks for the right to refuse to serve us because of who we are.
As the parent of a child with a serious substance abuse problem, I probably should have purchased Narcan a long time ago. Narcan, or Naloxone, is an antidote to opioid overdose. If administered soon after a person has overdosed on heroin or prescription painkillers (e.g., Vicodin, Percocet, Oxycontin), Narcan can save the person’s life.
At a state GOP gubernatorial candidate forum last night, several candidates made ominous statements about how they view the judicial renomination process. Judges are appointed for eight year terms in Connecticut. But there is a rebuttable presumption that they will be reappointed when their terms expire, barring serious ethical, criminal, or judicial temperament concerns.
Yale Law School professor Jack Balkin has this interesting post on the enforceability of the nondisclosure agreement that adult film actress Stormy Daniels signed in exchange for $130,000, paid on behalf of President Trump. Balkin notes that such agreements are generally enforceable because people can voluntarily waive their First Amendment rights. But he argues that such agreements may, under certain circumstances, violate public policy. Money quote:
Daniels’ strongest argument is a public policy argument within contract law– courts should refuse to enforce some (but not all) nondisclosure agreements because they are against public policy. The public policy in this case is the public’s right to know about the private life of the President of the United States before he became President. In the alternative, there might be a public policy justifying a much narrower right of disclosure–namely, the right of the public to know whether the President and his allies violated campaign finance rules in order to keep Daniels quiet. There are plausible arguments for both of these positions, but they sound more in contract law than in First Amendment doctrine.
It’s “Sunshine Week“–the week each year when we celebrate the importance of freedom of information and government transparency. In honor of this auspicious occasion, take a moment out of your day to chuckle as you listen to The FOI!, a little song I wrote in honor of the 30th anniversary of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act!
Most of us have been trained to use more forgiving language when talking about addiction. We call it a disease. We say that people with addiction should be helped, not blamed. But deep down, many of us still have trouble avoiding the thought that they could stop using if they just tried harder.
Brendan de Kenessey, A philosopher explains why addiction isn’t a moral failure, Vox.com (March 5, 2018).
As the father of a child struggling to overcome a serious substance abuse problem, I’ve been forced to confront deeply held personal and societal beliefs about the relationship between addiction and personal responsibility. The above quote, from Brendan de Kenessey’s excellent article, captures how I long thought about the issue. But I’ve come to understand that this deeply held belief is mistaken. Addiction is not a choice. And because it is not a choice, it is also a mistake to think of addiction as a moral failure.
When people debate the legality of gun control legislation, the focus is usually on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. What many people may not realize, however, is that state constitutions often contain a similar (but not identical) provision. Thus, article first, § 15 of the Connecticut Constitution provides: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”