Legal Health Break
Posted: January 12, 2013 Filed under: Legal Health Break | Tags: 12 angry men, lee j. cobb Leave a commentLee J. Cobb and eleven other angry men:
Humpty Dumpty And The Law
Posted: January 10, 2013 Filed under: General Law | Tags: humpty dumpty, lewis carroll Leave a commentAll lawyers have literary sources on which they rely for quotes to make a point in a brief. One of my favorite sources–which I admit I probably overuse–is Humpty Dumpty. Or perhaps I should say Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass, published in 1872. Lawyers (and judges) trying to make a point about limits on the malleability of the English language often quote the following conversation between Humpty Dumpty and Alice: Read the rest of this entry »
Robert Bork, Ctd.
Posted: January 10, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: borking, robert bork Leave a commentIn a previous post following the recent passing of Judge Robert Bork, I questioned whether the ferocity with which certain groups on the political spectrum attacked Bork when he was nominated to the United States Supreme Court had created an unintended backlash that has turned Supreme Court nominations into a blood sport. Read the rest of this entry »
Governor Malloy Nominates Judge Espinosa To Supreme Court
Posted: January 7, 2013 Filed under: General Law Leave a commentGovernor Malloy has announced that he will nominate Connecticut Appellate Court judge Carmen Espinosa to the Supreme Court, to fill the seat vacated by the recent retirement of Justice Ian McLachlan. This follows on the nomination of Andrew McDonald, the governor’s chief legal counsel and a former state senator, to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Lubbie Harper, Jr. Read the rest of this entry »
Is The United States Constitution Broken?
Posted: January 5, 2013 Filed under: General Law | Tags: broken constitution, lewis michael seidman, on constitutional disobedience, our undemocratic constitution, professor levinson, sandy levinson, sanford levinson, structure Leave a commentCongress is dysfunctional. Our federal government appears incapable of addressing the most pressing issues facing our country without repeatedly bringing the nation to the brink of financial disaster. Many people ask themselves, “Why can’t our elected representatives rise above petty partisan politics and act for the public good?” Respectfully, I think that is the wrong question. Rather, we should ask, “Why do our elections constantly seem to produce officials who can’t govern effectively, who can’t make the reasonable, rational compromises that make for a workable, functioning democracy?” We should also ask, “Are there problems with the way our government is structured that contribute to its dysfunctionality?” (I use the term “structure” here broadly to include not only the division of our government into three distinct branches, but also the structure, powers and rules governing each branch and the elected or appointed officials who occupy them.) And because the structure of our federal government is determined by the United States Constitution–a document drafted in 1787, adopted in 1789, and amended only twenty-seven times since then (but really only seventeen times if you treat the Bill of Rights as one big amendment)–we must consider whether the Constitution itself is in need of repair. Read the rest of this entry »
Ethel Silver Sorokin: A Life Well Lived And Well Worth Remembering
Posted: January 3, 2013 Filed under: General Law 1 CommentBy Mitchell W. Pearlman
Ethel Silver Sorokin died on December 11, 2012. Given the magnitude of the terrible tragedy that occurred in Newtown that week, it was easy for those who know little or nothing about Ethel to miss the news of her death. But her death – and more importantly her life – are well worth remembering. For along with her deceased husband, Milton, Ethel was one of the last of a breed of lawyers dedicated by principle to defending the First Amendment and Freedom of Information from the perpetual attacks against it.
Former Chief Justice Robert Callahan Passes Away
Posted: January 2, 2013 Filed under: Appellate Law Leave a commentFormer Connecticut Supreme Court Chief Justice Robert Callahan passed away last night at the age of 82. He served on the Supreme Court from 1985 to 1999, first as an associate justice and later as chief justice after Ellen Ash Peters took senior status.
I had the great honor of getting to know Justice Callahan during the 1990-1991 Supreme Court term, when I was a law clerk. His clerk that year was Brian Henebry, now the managing partner of Carmody & Torrance. I spent a fair amount of time in Justice Callahan’s chambers and always enjoyed speaking with him. He was warm, had a great sense of humor, loved his job, loved the Court, and loved his family. He will be missed.
Who Owns Space?
Posted: January 2, 2013 Filed under: General Law | Tags: property rights, space, space law Leave a commentI’ve always thought that humans arguing over who owns space is a lot like a bunch of fleas arguing over who owns the dog they’re living on. But like any viable economic system, the successful exploitation of resources available via space travel requires a set of workable rules for recognizing property rights in space. As this interesting article in The New Atlantis-A Journal of Technology & Society explains: Read the rest of this entry »
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Nominated Exclusively From The Ranks Of Sitting Trial Or Appellate Judges?
Posted: December 31, 2012 Filed under: Appellate Law | Tags: andrew mcdonald 2 CommentsGovernor Malloy recently nominated his chief legal counsel, Andrew McDonald, to fill a position on the Connecticut Supreme Court created by the retirement of Justice Lubbie Harper, Jr. In a just-published column, Manchester Journal Inquirer managing editor Chris Powell raises a number of questions about McDonald’s nomination. As a former state legislator and as the governor’s legal counsel, Mr. McDonald has taken strong positions on a variety of issues, including religious liberty and freedom of information. Powell is right to identify these issues, and asking Mr. McDonald about them during his confirmation process is both legitimate and appropriate. Read the rest of this entry »
The Rule Of Law In Colonial Connecticut
Posted: December 30, 2012 Filed under: General Law, Legal History | Tags: code of 1650, due process, fundamental orders, magna carta, roger ludlow Leave a commentWhat, if anything, do Connecticut’s earliest legal documents have to say about the rule of law and its relationship to an orderly society? Let’s start with a document known as the Fundamental Orders, adopted on January 14, 1639 (or perhaps 1638 according to some sources). The phrase “Constitution State,” which we see so often on the license plate of the car in front of us, is based on the notion–accepted by some, disputed by others–that the Fundamental Orders represent the first written constitution in the western world. The Orders (of which there were eleven) established a formal confederation among the towns of Windsor, Wethersfield and Hartford and set forth a form of government. However, it is the introductory paragraph, a preamble of sorts, that explains why a government is desired: Read the rest of this entry »
