IndyLaw Net is an independent weblog written and managed by students and alumni of the Indiana University School of Law in Indianapolis, serving the IU Law-Indy community.
We welcome and encourage comments... Please check out ILN's commenting policy
Nathan Van Sell
Prof. Jeff Cooper
In the Agora
Jelly Beans & Corduroy
The Sleepy Sage
Waiting for the Punchline
Other Law Students
The Kitchen Cabinet
letters from babylon
Letters of Marque
Notes from the Underground
Three Years of Hell
D. Gordon Smith
The Volokh Conspiracy
White Collar Crime prof blog
Andrew R. Cline
Daniel W. Drezner
Mark A. R. Kleiman
History News Network
Program for Judicial Awareness
Howard J. Bashman
Tech Law Advisor
Math Class for Poets
Statutory Construction Zone
Indiana Law Blog
Stop the Bleating
CNN - Law
Sapere aude - dare to be wise
Saturday, June 24, 2006
The Wall Street Journal's Cameron Stracher has an interesting article titled, "Law School by Default; Want to Keep Your Options Open? Don't Train to be a Lawyer."
They're dropping like flies. Count 'em. Despite the swelling ranks of the new recruits, the steady growth in large corporate firms, and the length, breadth and expense of lawsuits, the legal profession is actually losing lawyers every day, a silent drain of talent to banking, business and premature retirement. Every year, I face a new class of eager law students, ready to take on the world, but after a couple of years of practice, many have lost their youthful glow. Perhaps it's time to rethink the whole "law school as default" mentality that infects so many otherwise sane young minds....(Hat tip: TaxProf Blog)
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Always a popular (read: contentious) issue on ILN, the debate on gay marriage has seen an inevitable expansion into issues of religious freedom and constitutional philosophy.
The New York Times has a good write-up on how gay marriage implicates religious freedom, an extremely new area of law. This clash could potentially occur in two different directions. [hat-tip to Josh for the NYT link]
As one scholar in the article points out, legally sanctioning gay marriages in one jurisdiction could impact religious freedom relating to church-run summer camps, daycare centers, etc. Conversely, prohibiting gay marriage might clash with religious freedom when a church marries a gay couple and the state refuses to recognize that marriage while at the same time recognizing the heterosexual marriages performed by other churches. Legal conflicts in this realm could support a push for so-called "contract marriage."
While most Republicans support a gay marriage ban for moral reasons, many nevertheless oppose amending the U.S. Constitution to create such a ban, usually citing the conservative philosophy of limiting the power of the federal government.
Tom Ehrich, an Episcopal priest, relates an argument of constitutional philosophy in his column in The Herald Sun:
The Constitution doesn't exist to resolve religious disputes. It exists to provide a just and equitable environment of laws and rights in which citizens can address religious issues, along with equally thorny issues involving human rights, property rights and competing claims for power....
A San Francisco superior court judge has thrown out that city's handgun ban. The ban prohibited the possession of a handgun by any resident with the exception of police officers and professionals in security-related positions. It also forbade the manufacture, sale, or distribution of all guns and ammunition within the city.
Do not be fooled by any hype surrounding this case, however, as the judge did not rule on 2nd Amendment grounds but rather that the city ordinance intruded into an area reserved for California state law. Nevertheless, expect the judge's decision to be promptly appealed.
Readers may recall that this is not the first time that San Francisco has entered into a conflict regarding the scope of its legislative/executive power. The most prominent episode occurred when it attempted to marry gay couples, contrary to California law.
Monday, June 05, 2006
The IUPUI Office of Student Life and Diversity has just issued this bulletin:
In a continued effort to promote health and reflect IUPUI's health/life sciences emphasis, a new campus wide Tobacco Free policy will take effect Aug. 14, 2006. The policy will ban the use and sale of all tobacco products on university-owned property and in university-owned, -leased or -operated vehicles.
For more information about the policy, visit http://www.tobaccofree.iupui.edu.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Last term President Bush pushed an anti gay marriage amendment, despite the fact that the Senate was unlikely to support any such measure. In fact, the vote fell far short of the 67 votes necessary to pass and presently it is unclear whether or not there is even a normal majority of 50 votes in support of it.
Nevertheless, President Bush has decided to once again push the amendment this term.
Shame on him. While I do not begrudge him for sincerely opposing gay marriage, I do begrudge him for pushing this fruitless endeavor when there is so much else that Congress needs to get done. Just as was the case last term, this is an obvious political tactic to energize the "values" base of the party.
Further, even if there was a possibility that the Senate could pass the amendment, it is still unnecessary for opponents of gay marriage to pursue it. The National Journal's Jonathan Rauch argues such, saying that the Supreme Court--under its current composition--has no chance of legalizing gay marriage nationally, and the Defense of Marriage Act already allows states to refuse to ratify gay marriages from other states. DOMA has been upheld in every circuit court in which it has been challenged, including in the liberal 9th circuit.
Finally, Rauch poses an interesting question to pro-life, anti gay marriage Republicans:
Two questions for anti-gay-marriage, anti-abortion Republicans: If states can be allowed to go their own way in defining human life, why not allow them to go their own way in defining marriage? Where constitutional amendments are concerned, why is preventing gay couples from marrying so much more urgent than preventing unborn children from being killed?[hat-tip to my friend Kristine for the Rauch article]
Update (6/7/06): Senate rejects the amendment; only 49 votes in favor... no surprise here