Someone sent me this screen shot from yesterday’s coverage and asked how I was able to join Chief Justice John Roberts in discussing the health care ruling. Frankly, I thought arriving at the studio in his robe was a bit much but I appreciate his participation in the coverage. It is, however, a bit unfair to reply to analysis by your co-panelist with “well, that is not what I meant.” I think I have a slightly better handle on his own intentions, fears, and feelings after doing this type of work for a couple decades. Indeed, I have been known to go into a deep trance on television and channel the thoughts of James Madison (as well as Thomas Paine’s bartender).
Continue reading “Now Let’s Turn To Our Other Guest On What He Thinks Chief Justice Roberts Intended . . .”
Category: Lawyering
In an important win for free speech, the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit in striking down the Stolen Valor Act — legislation that I have previously criticized (here and here) as a threat to the first amendment. The nice thing is that it was not particularly close and Chief Justice Roberts again broke with his more conservative colleagues. In United States v. Alvarez, No. 11-210, the Court held 6-3 that it is unconstitutional to criminalize lies — in that case lying about receiving military decorations or medals. Ironically, Alvarez now has something to brag about but no one will believe him.
Continue reading “Supreme Court Strikes Down The Stolen Valor Act”
Below is my column in today’s Guardian newspaper — a further discussion of my proposal to expand the Supreme Court. While overlapping a bit with the column on Sunday in the Washington Post, the piece adds a few new details on the proposal that I first made over ten years ago.
As many on this blog know, I rarely respond to criticism of columns that I run in USA Today or other newspapers. As a columnist, I feel that I am given a rare opportunity to express my views and criticism comes with the territory. However, I was taken aback by many of the comments in response to my Sunday column in The Washington Post discussing my proposal for the expansion of the United States Supreme Court. Though the proposal was given serious and supportive reviews by some sites like Forbes, some conservatives immediately assumed that I was a liberal simply upset with the anticipated ruling striking down the individual mandate provision of the health care law. When another law professor and blogger (Ann Althouse) joined this ill-informed and uncivil chorus, I thought I would respond. This blog has always strived to maintain a strict civility rule — distinguishing it from many other blogs by discouraging and sometimes eliminating ad hominem and personal attacks. Yet, I am still surprised by the lack of civility and responsibility by many — particularly fellow lawyers and academics — in responding to such proposals. [Update: Professor Ann Althouse has responded to my call for greater civility with a new blog entitled “Jonathan Turley’s civility bullshit about my calling ‘bullshit’ on his Court-packing plan.” Notably, Professor Althouse does not address the fact that she was completely wrong in claiming that I was motivated by dislike for the anticipated ruling striking down the individual mandate in the health care case. (Apparently both civility and factual accuracy fall into the same “BS” category for Professor Althouse).]
Below is today’s column in The Washington Post Sunday Outlook. Due to the normal space restraints, the original article had to be cut down. Given the high number of comments and questions about the proposal (which I first made years ago) for the expansion of the Supreme Court, I have posted the longer, original piece. That longer version addresses some of the questions raised by readers.
Continue reading “The Nineteen Member Court: The Case For Expanding The United States Supreme Court”
By Mark Esposito, Guest Blogger
The NFL is facing a daunting number of lawsuits contending it knew of the dangers of traumatic brain injury resulting from concussions but hid that information from its players. Those suits have been consolidated and a local Richmond, VA resident is the lead plaintiff. The widow of former Atlanta Falcon Ray Easterling, Mary Ann, has continued a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the NFL following her husband’s suicide in April. The former all-pro free safety suffered from depression and insomnia following his playing days on the famous “Grits Blitz” defense during the 1970s. Nineteen Hall of fame players have joined the roughly 2400 other plaintiffs in the suits. Among them are legendary tough-guys Eric Dickerson,Tony Dorsett (and his son, Anthony), Rickey Jackson, John Hannah, Bill Bergey, Bob Lilly, John Randle, the late Lee Roy Selmon and Randy White.
Two California lawyers have been arrested in a bizarre alleged conspiracy to plant drugs in the car of the PTA president of their child’s school. Lawyers Kent Wycliffe Easter, 38, and Jill Bjorkholm Easter, 38, targeted Kelli Peters because they felt she treated her son poorly by locking him outside of the school for 20 minutes. They are accused of putting Vicodin, Percocet, marijuana, and a used marijuana pipe behind the front seat of her car to frame her.
Associate Circuit Judge Barbara T. Peebles is under investigation for allegedly allowing her clerks to handle litigation matters as she vacationed in China last year. To make matters worse, there is a criminal investigation into the disappearance of a document related to the vacation. In the meantime, another judge, Margaret J. Walsh resigned after allegations that she ordered the handcuffing of an assistant city counselor and used inappropriate or abusive language as well as allegedly attempting to influence city officials when her son was rejected for a job.
Kenneth Kratz, a former Wisconsin district attorney, has pleaded guilty in a legal ethics case for his alleged sexual harassment of multiple women. The allegations included text messages to a domestic abuse victim. In text messages, he told a woman that she might be “hot” but, due to his large house and salary, “I am the prize.” If so, the Office of Lawyer Regulation won the prize with pleas on three counts.
-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
“Criteria for selection for this list include the quality of the tweets, the number of followers and the most active users. ” Source:
14. Jonathan Turley, @JonathanTurley, George Washington Law School. Snappy headlines link to Turley’s blog posts, offering perspectives on politics, world and legal news.
The Justice Department announced Wednesday that it will not retry John Edwards. That ends a prosecution that seemed driven more by political than legal considerations. After spending years and millions of dollars, the Public Integrity Section accomplished nothing except to raise questions about its own priorities and function. It is not uncommon for prosecutors to yield to the temptation of bringing charges against high-profile defendants. However, the Justice Department stretched the campaign finance laws to the breaking point on this case. It seems intent on satisfying the public anger toward Edwards for his adultery and betrayal.
Continue reading “Justice Department Drops Remaining Counts Against John Edwards”
We have previously discussed how it is remarkable that people still fall for Nigerian Internet scams and fork over much of their life savings — allowing these criminals to thrive on the one percent of gullible people. Now it appears that these gullible parties include law firms which have forked over millions to Nigerian con men. The most common involves a con where a man asks a firm for help in a settlement negotiation or real estate deal. He offers the law firm a hefty cashier’s check to put in its escrow account. It is only after the firm pays out on part of the check that they discovered it is bogus. At least 600 attorneys and firms have fallen victim to the scam with losses exceeding $31 million.
Continue reading “Dewey, Cheatem & Howe: Law Firms Losing Tens of Millions In Nigerian Scams”
This may not come as much of a surprise to some, but lawyers report some of the highest rates of weight gain of any professions due to stress eating and eating out regularly. The study also reports high weight gain for administrative assistants, travel agents and other desk bound folk.
Continue reading “Lawyers Have Bigger Briefs: Study Finds Lawyers and Judges Prone To Weight Gain”
It is apparently not a good argument to compare contracting herpes to spilled coffee. It took just two hours for a jury to find a 69-year-old Oregon dentist liable for giving a nurse herpes. It was however the attorneys arguments in court that raises eyebrows. Defense attorney Shawn Lillegren attacked the nurse as a liar who said that she was just trying to be the next spilled coffee litigant to win the litigation lottery and that she needs to grow up. If so, she got it. The jury awarded her the full amount demanded in damages: $900,000 for her pain and suffering
In a major victory for gay rights, the United States Court of Appeal for the First Circuit in Boston has found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional in a unanimous ruling. The court found that the 1996 law discriminates against homosexual couples. The law was supported by Bill Clinton and by the Obama Administration until the latter recently reversed its position in court and withdrew support for the law before the Court. The case is Gill v. Office of Personnel Management.