Former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey Controversial Choice As UCONN Law School Visiting Scholar
Posted: April 6, 2013 Filed under: General Law, Legal History | Tags: michael mukasey, torture, waterboarding 1 CommentLaw schools, like all academic institutions, should be places that promote freedom of speech and thought; that encourage, indeed provoke, students to think deep and hard about difficult issues and to consider alternate points of view. They should not shy away from inviting controversial speakers to their campuses. But when they do, students, faculty, administrators, and the public at large, should not be reluctant to challenge the speakers’ expressed views. The best responses to disagreeable speech are tough questions and opposing speech, not banning the speaker.
Lessons Learned, Lessons Forgotten–The Sealing (And Unsealing) Of The Sandy Hook Search Warrants
Posted: March 31, 2013 Filed under: General Law Leave a commentAfter a three-month delay due to a judicial sealing order, state officials last Thursday released five slightly redacted search warrants related to the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy. Having reviewed the disclosed information, it seems to me that most of it could have been revealed months ago without jeopardizing the investigation (or causing unnecessary pain to the families of the victims). It is fair to ask whether the legal predicates to sealing the search warrants and supporting affidavits in their entirety were satisfied. I think not.
The Tyranny Of The Billable Hour
Posted: March 29, 2013 Filed under: General Law Leave a commentIn a past post, The Growing Law School Disaster, I wrote about several very disturbing trends concerning law school graduate debt and lowering law school admission standards. In a terrific op-ed in the New York Times today, attorney Steven J. Harper writes about a closely related issue: the billable hour system and the deleterious effects that system has on the profession, individual lawyers and the clients we serve. Harper writes:
The billable-hour system is the way most lawyers in big firms charge clients, but it serves no one. Well, almost no one. It brings most equity partners in those firms great wealth. Law firm leaders call it a leveraged pyramid. Most associates call it a living hell.
The “Nanny State” Ctd.
Posted: March 25, 2013 Filed under: General Law | Tags: autonomy, nanny state, paternalism Leave a commentFurther to my earlier post about new arguments in favor of paternalistic legislation, Prof. Sarah Conly has an op-ed in today’s NY Times concerning the subject matter of her new book, Against Autonomy: Justifying Coercive Paternalism. For folks interested in the arguments for and against NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s efforts to limit the size of sodas that can be sold in New York, and similar “liberty limiting” legislation, the op-ed is a great read. Money quote:
Of course, what people fear is that this is just the beginning: today it’s soda, tomorrow it’s the guy standing behind you making you eat your broccoli, floss your teeth, and watch “PBS NewsHour” every day. What this ignores is that successful paternalistic laws are done on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis: if it’s too painful, it’s not a good law. Making these analyses is something the government has the resources to do, just as now it sets automobile construction standards while considering both the need for affordability and the desire for safety. Read the rest of this entry »
Recess Appointments, Constitutional Hardball And The Political Question Doctrine
Posted: March 21, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law Leave a commentThe Editorial Board of the Connecticut Law Tribune recently wrote an interesting editorial (behind the Trib’s pay wall) on the D.C. Circuit’s decision concerning the scope of the president’s authority to make “recess appointments” pursuant to Article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. (“The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.”) The Editorial Board offers a thoughtful perspective on the decision, including a suggestion that the Supreme Court should consider the matter and affirm the decision, even though doing so could lead to governmental paralysis. I write to offer an alternative perspective based on a practice that Harvard Law School Professor Mark Tushnet describes as “constitutional hardball.” I suggest the Supreme Court treat the issue as a “political question” that is not subject to judicial review.
Legal Health Break
Posted: March 16, 2013 Filed under: Legal Health Break Leave a commentSpencer Tracy in Inherit the Wind! (Click on the picture for video clip.)
The Growing Law School Disaster
Posted: March 13, 2013 Filed under: General Law Leave a commentI had the opportunity this past weekend to personally congratulate McCarter & English partner Tim Fisher on his appointment as the new dean of the University of Connecticut School of Law. Tim is a great guy and a terrific lawyer. His selection as dean marks a clear turning point for UCONN, which has traditionally drawn its law school deans from the ranks of academia.
I know Tim is looking forward to his new position. But, boy oh boy, what challenges he will face. (The following comments deal with law schools in general, not UCONN specifically.)
Autonomy v. Paternalism: Arguments For And Against The “Nanny State.”
Posted: March 4, 2013 Filed under: General Law | Tags: autonomy, nanny state, paternalism Leave a commentWhat do mandatory seat belt, motorcycle helmet and “no sweetened drinks in containers larger than 16 oz.” laws have in common: They are all examples of paternalistic, i.e., “government knows what’s best for you,” legislation. In a country that places a premium on individual autonomy and the notion, a la John Stuart Mill and On Liberty, that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don’t hurt someone else (Mill’s “Harm Principle”), paternalistic legislation always provokes very strong feelings.
“Tell ’em what you’re gonna say, say it, tell ’em what you said.”
Posted: February 10, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law, Legal Videos, Practice and Procedure Leave a comment
Appealingly Brief! 