In a culture that recoils at the very idea of teaching school children about the God of the Bible, one has to wonder about said culture’s self-appointed commitment to “truth” when one reads a story like this. So what do you think? Is it the job of educators to impart nothing more than empirically verifiable data or is there room for cultural traditions, even the fabricated ones?

Roe v. Wade and its progeny represent some of the most controversial Constitutional case law in American history. Recently, the Supreme Court has indicated a slight retreat from its virtual “abortion on demand” precedent over the past thirty five years, drawing accusations of judicial activism or legislation from the bench. Whether these accusations are true or not is irrelevant; if the Court is guilty of legislating from the bench, no case is a clearer example of such behavior than Roe itself.

The Roe majority based its holding on several morally bankrupt positions: the rejection of prenatal personhood, the ignoring of any interests of the unborn, and the arbitrary dictate that an individual’s bodily autonomy is a superior interest to a state’s interest in protecting innocent life. Read the rest of this entry »

Students of Constitutional law spend a great deal of time learning about “levels of review” when studying the Supreme Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence. Particularly in the context of the Fourteenth and Fifth Amendments, the Court applies this hierarchy of levels when balancing state interests against individual liberties. However, a cursory review of what these “levels” are and how they are used indicates that the entire system is merely a tool to facilitate the Court’s long-held results-oriented approach to deciding social issues. Read the rest of this entry »

Healthcare law classes generally include a discussion of off-label uses for prescription medication. If you happen to become engaged in such a discussion, be sure to mention this story.

In perusing the post-election headlines, I ran across this story about Californians protesting the passage of the controversial “Proposition 8″ which amended the state constitution to prohibit homosexual marriages. My purpose here is not to comment on the proposition or even the social issue at all. Rather, in reading the story, it occurred to me that I could not recall another instance in which there were public demonstrations and protests over the outcome of a popular vote.

I can understand people protesting the government when it makes unilateral actions that people disagree with. Certainly the purpose of protesting (and indeed, the First Amendment) is to ensure the people have a voice when their government takes actions with which the people disagree. But Proposition 8 was voted on by the people. Those for it and those opposed to it had their voices heard, not just with the pre-vote campaigning, but in the exercise of the vote itself.

So what do you think? Is this a perfectly legitimate protest, or does it border on “sour grapes”? Are there any other instances I am not aware of where Americans protested the outcome of the direct exercise of democracy?

Read this, and then read this.

Thoughts?

Personally, I cannot see the educational value in taking school children to any personal life event of a teacher. I would object to children being taken to any wedding during school hours. To be charitable, perhaps this was a way for the teacher to avoid having to take a personal day.

Well the school year is a few weeks old and I and my fellow 2L’s are therefore already buried. That being said, it’s never good to let a blog grow cold, so hopefully I (and the other contributors!) will find time to re-energize it. One thing you may notice is the name change. I felt it was time for something punchier; that time is now.

Anyway, on to business.

I am not all that interested in economics per se, nor do I consider myself a political guru by any stretch. Nonetheless, I wanted to offer up a remark about the astonishing $700,000,000,000.00 government bank buyout that is currently occupying headlines.

I don’t pretend to know all the details of this plan, but obviously, someone is going to have to pay for it and everyone knows the U.S. government is already dead broke. That fact also brings up an interesting corollary that I am not seeing mentioned in the media: We are in this position because of widespread and rampant financial mismanagement. So why do we think that the federal government (which already has a $10 Trillion debt to testify to its financial management prowess) is going to make the situation better? And even if we could be sure it would, does that necessarily mean that it should?

It makes me nervous when the government interferes in free markets for the purpose of economic engineering.

One other point that goes to my caveat regarding politics. I would consider myself conservative, but I would not call myself a Republican. One reason for this is exemplified by this issue. If liberals can be counted on to increase government spending to pay for gratuitous government programs, why can’t conservatives be counted on to keep the government uninvolved and let the market regulate itself? Why does the choice seem only to be where we spend the $700 Billion we don’t have?

HP Shatters Excessive Packaging World Record

[Insert references to Step-Saver v. Wyse Technologies here]