How Much Is A Life (Or A Leg, Arm, Finger) Worth?
Posted: August 11, 2013 Filed under: General Law Leave a commentGenerally speaking, the notion of putting a monetary value on a human life is repugnant to our social and religious mores. Human life is priceless, right?
But the truth is that we attach monetary values to lives (and limbs) every day. In wrongful death actions, in personal injury actions, in workers’ compensation cases, judges, jurors and workers’ comp. commissioners are required to place a monetary value on a lost life or limb. This process has become, well, almost routine.
Should We Preserve, Or Ditch, The Constitution?
Posted: July 22, 2013 Filed under: General Law, Legal History Leave a commentOh, how I love C-SPAN! It covered, and has made available for viewing on its website, a thought-provoking panel discussion at Princeton University earlier this month. The topic: Is The American Constitution Worth Preserving? Did the Founding Fathers bequeath us a timeless document, capable of addressing all problems for all ages, or is the Constitution an archaic, inefficient instrument in dire need of revision?
The Growing Law School Disaster, Ctd.
Posted: July 18, 2013 Filed under: General Law 1 CommentI’ve written in the past about the growing concern many people have about the high cost of law school relative to the increasingly poor job prospects for new graduates. The topic continues to generate serious debate.
10,000 Hits!
Posted: July 9, 2013 Filed under: Uncategorized 2 CommentsDear Readers:
Just moments ago (approx. 6:45 p.m.) we topped 10,000 views (human, not web crawlers, spiders, etc.) on this blog! I started Appealingly Brief! about a year ago and never imagined reaching this milestone. I know that for serious bloggers, 10,000 hits is something to strive for each day, not each year. But I’m so very pleased that even just a few new viewers each day find something of interest on the blog. Thanks for reading! And please don’t hesitate to send comments and suggestions about how to improve the blog, topics of interest, and anything else of a legal nature that happens to be on your mind.
Dan
Vindication At Last: Parallels Between Bysiewicz v. DiNardo And The Supreme Court’s Decision On Proposition 8
Posted: July 9, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law Leave a commentConnecticut readers will recall the epic battle several years ago between former Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz and the state Republican Party over whether Bysiewicz was qualified to serve as Attorney General. Although Bysiewicz persuaded Judge Michael Sheldon (now on the Appellate Court) that she met the statutory qualifications to serve as the AG, a unanimous state Supreme Court concluded otherwise.
Why Joe Friday Wouldn’t Have Made A Good Appellate Advocate
Posted: June 24, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law, Practice and Procedure | Tags: oral argument Leave a commentThe late Jack Webb, who played Sgt. Joe Friday on “Dragnet,” is perhaps best remembered for uttering this famous line: “Just the facts, ma’am.” (Actually, according to Wikipedia, he actually said, “”All we want are the facts.”) Whatever the line, appellate advocates would do well to ignore Sgt. Friday’s focus on the facts when they argue before an appellate tribunal.
U.S. Supreme Court Agrees To Hear Recess Appointments Case
Posted: June 24, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: recess appointment Leave a commentThe Supreme Court agreed today to hear a very important case involving the scope of the President’s authority under the recess appointments clause of the U.S. Constitution. (Click here to read my previous post on this case.)
Legal Health Break
Posted: June 5, 2013 Filed under: Legal Health Break 1 CommentSteven Spielberg’s opinion of lawyers:
What To Do About The Sandy Hook Photographs?
Posted: June 2, 2013 Filed under: General Law 2 CommentsOver the past several weeks the public has witnessed a very serious debate about how to balance two very important values: the right to privacy and the public’s “right to know.” Specifically, the debate has centered on the tension between the right of Sandy Hook families to avoid having photographs of their deceased children splashed over the Internet, and the public’s right of access to public documents under the state’s freedom of information laws.
The Three-Fifths Compromise: Immoral Bargain Or Unavoidable Evil?
Posted: May 27, 2013 Filed under: General Law, Legal History 2 CommentsMore than twenty years ago I began writing a book on dilemmas. Actually, it is more of a collection of dilemmas (the product of a tortured mind and soul), which I hope to publish as an eBook in the not-too-distant future. One of the dilemmas I collected was the “three-fifths compromise”–one of several deals the Framers made with the Southern, slave-holding states, to persuade them to sign on to the new Constitution. Under the three-fifths compromise, the number of representatives allocated to each state in the House of Representatives was based on the number of free citizens “and three fifths of all other persons” in each state. Southerners wanted all slaves counted; Northerners wanted none, hence the compromise.
Appealingly Brief! 