EEOC Guidance Emphasizes Possible Bias in Blanket Bans of Job Applicants with Criminal Pasts

via ABA Journal

Hey  Charles, thanks for meeting with us today ... I see here you've had a pretty large gap between your last position working for [REDACTED] and now. What have you been up to since, hmm ... 1969?


Well, actually I've had a bit of legal trouble, but that's all in the past now.


Oh, ok, great. Well, that's fine, I mean, we don't really need to go into all the details. I'm sure it won't affect your ability to clean houses here in Hollywood, will it?

Suit Claims Ghosts in Rental Home Justify Return of Security Deposit

via ABA Journal

They should've known something was up when this guy showed them the house:

The couple left the home one week after moving in, though they had paid a full month’s rent along with the security deposit. “There’s no way I’m going back there,” Callan tells the Asbury Park Press.

The landlord, orthodontist Richard Lopez, has countersued the couple for breaking their one-year lease. Rent is $1,500 a month and the security deposit was $2,250.

Good for them. Honestly, don't you ask yourself why nobody ever just leaves right away?

"Honey, a demonic force just tried to kill me ... can we get outta here?"

"No, let's give it another chance. We'll call up our friend Zelda and she can give us a good cleanse ..."

"Oh, okay. That'll take care of it."

Obama vs. SCOTUS on Healthcare Ruling

via ABA Journal:

President Obama took on the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday with a declaration that a decision to overturn the health care law would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary” step of judicial activism. Obama said he was confident, however, that the law would be upheld, report the Washington Post and the New York Times. “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint—that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

Yahoo News writer Susan Graybeal weighs in:

Obama's Health Care Comments are Insulting to the Supreme Court:

I think such language on the part of the president is tacky and insulting, not only to the Supreme Court justices but to the American people as well. 

The American public realizes the president supports the health care law and believes it is constitutional. Additionally, I think we understand the notion the Supreme Court justices are "unelected" and the health care law was enacted by an elected Congress. What the president doesn't seem to understand is there are an awful lot of us who also get the idea of checks and balances and that one of the appropriate checks of the judicial branch of government is to make sure that the laws passed by the legislative branch are constitutional.

So Obama is being mean, but is he at least being "fair"? That's one of his buzzwords. Is the Supreme Court really acting out of line here in considering striking down Obamacare? The WSJ offers Mr. Obama a lesson in constitutional law:

Obama vs. Marbury v. Madison

Presidents are paid to be confident about their own laws, but what's up with that "unprecedented'? In Marbury in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review. In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of those laws were passed be a "democratically elected" legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by "strong" majorities. 

Also at the WSJ, our pal James Taranto had this to say:

President Obama made a statement today whose ignorance is all the more stunning for his once having been a part-time professor of constitutional law. . . . Unprecedented? . . . Did he sleep through the Harvard Law class on Marbury v. Madison? 

For that matter, did he sleep through his own 2010 State of the Union Address, in which he upbraided the Supreme Court for striking down portions of the Taft-Hartley and McCain-Feingold laws, both of which passed Congress by wider margins than ObamaCare did?

Even Politico is skeptical of the president's challenge, or at least the timing:

Obama, the left take on Supreme Court

Obama made an unusual pre-emptive [sic] strike Monday that previews the Democratic strategy if the high court nixes all or major parts of his signature domestic achievement. his volley, coming less than a week after the oral arguments wrapped up and while the justices are still deliberating, injects a high-level dose of politics into the most anticipated ruling since the court settled the 2000 presidential race.

His message was simple: The Roberts Court is on trial. . . . 

But the approach, while cheered by the left, risks aggravating justices who recoiled at the president's last attempt to take them to task for a ruling he didn't like.

Obama isn't doing himself any favors here. His statements can't possibly hold any sway over the justices themselves, and make the president look like he's whining. I'm sure some on the left are happy to see him out throwing political punches, but those people are already going to vote for him in November. I'm sure he isn't worried about pissing off conservatives--they're already chomping at the bit to put anyone BUT Obama in the White House, but how is this supposed to help him with independents? He should be sticking with the emotional appeals: save the children, help the poor, stop pushing grandma off a cliff. Challenging the authority of the Court is the wrong move, at least until a decision has been made.

UPDATE: Speaking of aggravating judges ...

Althouse: 5th Circuit reacts to Obama's remarks on the Supreme Court case and orders response on whether the Administration thinks courts may strike down a federal law.

Keeping Data Secure at the Coffee Shop

via ABA Journal

In an increasingly connected world, lawyers at a coffee shop, a hotel or the airport may jump online to check email, get some work done or send a tweet. But that freedom to access the Internet practically whenever and wherever we want carries risks from thieves, hackers and nosy neighbors—a possible ethical violations of client privacy.

[U]sers should make sure they are using a secure HTTPS protocol rather than the HTTP protocol and have a secure, 12-character alphanumeric password to log on to their laptops.

Mighell recommended a specific website called Shields Up, that will scan and determine the security vulnerabilities on your computer. He also said that while both Windows and Mac OSX operating systems have basic built-in firewall programs, they don’t offer enough protection.

Mighell also recommended turning off file-sharing unless there is a particular reason for having it on, and to have only one public folder for files that can be shared only when needed.

He and Nelson also recommended scanning your mobile device for malware after using any public WiFi network. And Mighell suggested investing in a good data loss protection program that will detect, monitor and prevent data from leaving your system.

From the comments: 

Easy answer - don’t use the coffee shop for your law office.

So does this change anyone's thoughts about coffee shop computing? The advice above is pretty worthless. What if there is no HTTPS connection available? I'm guessing that there aren't very many coffee shops offering ultra-secure connections. Hell, most of the time you're lucky if you can find an outlet to plug your computer into.

Defendants Increasingly Don 'Hipster' Glasses; Murder Prosecutor Gets New Look on the Record

via ABA Journal

According to the Post, nonprescription “hipster” glasses have become something of a sensation at Washington, D.C., courthouses. Inmates trade them before hearings or obtain them from family members. Sometimes lawyers give them to their clients.

“They’re masks,” one anonymous prosecutor told the newspaper. “They’re designed to confuse the witness and influence the jury.”

First Amendment right to sport hipster glasses? No, screw that. Down with hipsters!!

TSA vs. Wheelchair-bound 3 Year Old Boy

via CNN:



And another TSA fail ...

"There is another human being putting their hands on my child. That is not acceptable," [the father] said. "If he was putting his hands on my child at McDonald's or anyplace else, we would immediately have him arrested and call the police."

On the other hand ...

TSA spokesman Greg Soule: "While recognizing that terrorists are willing to manipulate societal norms to evade detection, our officers continue to work with parents to ensure a respectful screening process for the entire family at the checkpoint."


So, what do you think?

LSAT Test Takers Decline; Is Law School Tuition Bubble Bursting?

ABA Journal:

I guess having thousands of unhappy, unemployed law grads and lawyers running around telling everyone not to go to law school is starting to have an effect. Good.

Death Row Inmate Challenges Oregon Gov’s Order Giving Him an Execution Reprieve

via ABA Journal:

Sentenced to death but given a reprieve by a state governor who says there will be no executions on his watch, an Oregon inmate is challenging the suspension of his death sentence. Gary Haugen, through his legal counsel, is challenging as unconstitutional Gov. John Kitzhaber's reprieve order, contending that it is legally ineffective because it has not been accepted by the defendant, the Oregonian reports. In a motion and supporting memorandum (PDF) filed Monday in state circuit court, attorney Harrison Latto seeks an order requiring the state to issue a new death warrant.

Talk about being ungrateful. And the attorney? Filing a motion demanding that his client be killed? Seems like an interesting ethics question. Seems like the attorney is acting against the interests of his client, except that the client wants to die. So ... the lawyer is assisting a suicide? Is that legal? Ethical?

Interesting that this is happening in Oregon, which passed the Death with Dignity Act in 2008, which allows terminally ill patients to receive help from their physicians to end their lives. Does that change the analysis? You could analogize the lawyer's position here to the doctor's position with terminally ill patients. Except that the governor stayed the execution. Of course, life in prison might be just as bad.

We'll see what happens.

Chris Christie Doesn't Regret Calling Law Student an Idiot

via ABA Journal

"Damn, man, I'm governor. Can you just shut up for a minute?"

I remember an event that took place during my first year of law school. I had been working for a few years after undergrad before going back to school, but many of my classmates had gone straight through and really didn't have a good sense of the "real world" outside of school. At this particular event, one of these classmates asked a question of a distinguished panel (former U.S. ambassador, law professors, dean of the law school) that said, to paraphrase, "why are you lying to us and saying such stupid things?" The question was directed to the former ambassador and stemmed from a political disagreement. I happened to agree with the ambassador's assessment, so I wasn't too impressed by the student's question to begin with, but I was really appalled by the lack of respect shown to the panel. The student displayed both arrogance and ignorance--she had quite obviously never held a real job or had to support herself in the real world, much less make decisions that would affect the lives of others. I wanted to apologize to the panel on behalf of the other students, but I didn't. I figured, correctly, as it turned out, that the student would not be regarded highly by the rest of the student body and that I didn't need to point out her flaws to everyone.

What is surprising is that the law student in the above story does have some life experience. Real, impressive life experience. Especially for someone with a military background, his refusal to adhere to the rules of the town hall meeting and his lack of respect for the governor are pretty surprising. I think Christie was right about what would happen if the guy acted this way in court. I'd love to see him try to shout down a federal judge.

Idiot.

Bankruptcy Lawyers Warn of Looming Student Loan ‘Debt Bomb’

via ABA Journal:

Student loan debt could turn into another crisis for the economy, according to the president of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys. William Brewer is putting a pessimistic spin on his group’s survey of 860 bankruptcy lawyers. “This could very well be the next debt bomb for the U.S. economy,” Brewer said in a press release (PDF). The Washington Post has the story. Eighty-one percent of the responding lawyers reported an increase in the number of potential clients they are seeing with student loan debt, according to the press release. Forty-eight percent said the increase was “significant.”

Movie Fan Sues over Theater's High Snack Prices and Ban on Outside Food

Movie Fan Sues over Theater's High Snack Prices and Ban on Outside Food - News - ABA Journal

Seems pretty frivolous to me. Just eat before you go. Or watch movies on Netflix or from Redbox. If movie theaters are forced to either lower their prices or allow outside food, then what's next? Forcing a 5 star restaurant to provide a dollar menu? I hate overpriced soda and popcorn just as much as the next guy, but that's why I am supportive of theaters that have reasonable prices. Consumers have the power to vote with their feet ... or with their mouths, in this case.

Apple vs. ... Hollywood?

via GIZMODO: Samsung Cites 2001: A Space Odyssey Against Apple in Greatest Legal Defense of All Time (Updated):

Apple is giving Samsung a legal pummelingbecause it thinks the latter stole the iPad's design for the Galaxy Tab. So far, the fight's going well for Apple. But Samsung has something up its sleeve: Apple ripped off science fiction.

[... Samsung argues] the idea for the iPad existed back in 1968, when Stanley Kubrick dreamed up his sci fi classic. And in American patent law, if the idea existed before your patent application—what's known as prior art—your patent is null. So essentially, Samsung is pulling a hell of a legal maneuver here, alleging they couldn't possibly have stolen the iPad's design, because Apple took it from an imaginary science fiction movie space station:

Check out the clip from 2001: A Space Odyssey:



Looks like a couple of iPads to me! More proof of the oncoming Terminator Apocalypse ... i.e., iPad = Hal = evil computer = death to all humans. It's pretty self-explanatory.

Chemerinsky: Supreme Court Weighs First Amendment, the Stolen Valor Act and the Protection of Lies

via ABA Journal:

One of the more fascinating cases on the U.S. Supreme Court's docket this term involves the constitutionality of the federal Stolen Valor Act, a law that makes it a crime for a person to falsely claim to have received a military medal or decoration. In United States v. Alvarez, argued Feb. 22, the court will decide whether the First Amendment protects such false speech. The court has not been consistent as to whether there is First Amendment protection for lies; it has very much depended on the context.

Lie to me. Just don't sue me.

Defense Lawyer Shouts 'Not Guilty' in Closing, Gives Prosecutors a Chicken Salad Sandwich

via ABA Journal:

Alabama justice.

Judge Is Relocated for Safety After His Scolding of 'Doofus' Zombie Muhammad Goes Viral

via ABA Journal:

So the victim (an atheist) is assaulted (allegedly) by a Muslim who was offended (predictably) by his Halloween costume, and the judge scolds ... the victim. For his Halloween costume. What is surprising is not that other people were offended by the judge's actions, but that the judge, who scolded the victim for being offensive to others, seems to be genuinely shocked that his abysmal handling of the situation might also be considered offensive.

From the comments:

"Note that, in the course of his denials, the judge did not deny being a doofus." 

Indeed.

UPDATE:


Just to be clear, I don't support (1) the costume idea, (2) the assault, (3) the judge's interpretation of the 1st Amendment, or (4) people threatening the judge. But the costume is the only thing that I would stand up for in court, because even though it's offensive it's still his right to be offensive. That's what Halloween is all about. And candy.


UPDATE via Instapundit:


CATHY YOUNG: Islam, Free Speech, and Democracy: What really happened in the Pennsylvania “zombie Mohammed” case? “In fact, there was no ‘Sharia court,’ and the judge is not a Muslim. But, however egregious the misreporting of the story and the vilification of the judge—Cumberland Country, Pennsylvania magistrate Mark W. Martin, who graciously answered my queries in an email exchange—the actual facts of the story are troubling. Judge Martin’s intent may have been entirely benign, but his handling of the case sends a bad message not only about freedom of speech, but about the place of Islam in American culture. . . . American religious practice, overall, is strongly tied to a hard-won tradition of freedom of religion—and irreligion. Judge Martin’s comments seem to suggest that Muslims are far less capable than Christians of dealing sensibly with insults or challenges to their faith. That does a serious disservice both to American democracy and to American Muslims.”