|
|
 |
|
|
May 2009 - Posts
-
|
This week, famously, the California Supreme Court issued its decision, Strauss v. Horton, upholding Proposition 8, the voter-adopted prohibition against same-sex marriages. Within twenty-four hours, former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson and celebrated trial attorney David Boies had together filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn this controversial provision of the California Constitution.
Olson and Boies are best known for their roles in Bush v. Gore. In their challenge to Proposition 8, Olson, the conservative, and Boies, the progressive, represent two California couples who are precluded from marrying in light of Proposition 8s changes to California law.
Clearly, with the high-profile Olson and Boies in charge, this is a carefully- considered move in taking same-sex marriage to federal court. However, for many good reasons, some in the Gay and Lesbian community, and some of the attorneys who have been toiling in this field for many years, are concerned about their action....
|
-
|
|
As many readers well know, the current economic downturn is closely tied to problems in the housing and mortgage markets. The bursting of the housing bubble led to the subprime mortgage mess, followed by widespread losses in the financial markets, the collapse of once-solid financial institutions, and a once-in-several-generations recession that might still become a depression. Moreover, the subprime problem is now reportedly being followed by a wave of mortgage defaults and foreclosures of homes owned by people who are losing their jobs, threatening to set off another round of financial chaos.
These are indeed trying times, and it is understandable that policymakers are trying to do everything possible to prevent homeowners from losing their homes to foreclosure. The question that we seem to be avoiding, however, is whether the current crisis points to a larger problem not just in our financial markets but in our commitment as a society to encourage home ownership.
This might be the right time to step back and ask: Why do we try so hard to increase the number of people who own their own homes?....
|
-
|
Last week, a Los Angeles Times article told the story of an unusual defamation suit. The suit is based on an episode of the fictional TV series "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation." It thus falls into the very small category of claims of "defamation by fiction."
The "CSI" episode told the story of two married Los Angeles real estate agents, Scott and Melinda Tucker. It offered Scott as a possible suspect in Melindas murder, and suggested that the Tuckers had had a kinky, sadomasochistic sex life. Previously, in real life, one of the episodes writers apparently had had a bad experience with two married Los Angeles real estate agents named Scott and Melinda Tamkin, when the expected sale of a house fell apart.
The real-life Tamkins now allege that the fictional "Tuckers" depicted in the "CSI" episode are thinly-veiled versions of them.....
|
-
|
The U.S. Supreme Courts final oral argument of the term, in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One (NAMUDNO) v. Holder, raised an important inquiry about the efficiency of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). In this column, I address the various factors that should influence such a cost-benefit analysis. I find that a consideration of the evidence in the record shows that the VRA is easily justifiable on grounds of efficiency.....
|
-
|
In 2005, an Oregon jury convicted Scott David Bowen of eight counts of raping, sodomizing, and sexually abusing his teenage daughter. The verdict was not, however, unanimous but consisted of a majority vote of 10-2 a breakdown that, in Oregon, suffices for conviction of crimes other than first-degree murder.
In his petition for Supreme Court review, Bowen contends that the Sixth Amendment jury trial right requires a unanimous jury for conviction of any serious criminal offense. Bowen thereby asks the Supreme Court to reconsider and overrule its 1972 decision in Apodaca v. Oregon, which upheld the split-verdict approach challenged here.
In this column, I will examine some practical implications of requiring unanimity for conviction (as all but two states currently do) rather than requiring something short of that, as Oregon and Louisiana do.....
|
|
|
|