ILBlogs

First Impressions
Jennifer Mehalik
More First Impressions

Recent Blog Posts

ABA: Judges, do you really need to post that vacation photo?

Jennifer Nelson
March 1, 2013
Comments(0)
The American Bar Association doesn’t want to stop judges from using social media, but it wants them to think before “friending” someone online or “liking” someone’s Facebook status.
More

You and social media

Jennifer Nelson
February 13, 2013
Comment(1)
How much time do you spend on social media promoting yourself professionally or your company?
More

Indiana Roll of Attorneys site gets makeover

Jennifer Nelson
February 1, 2013
Comments(0)
The Indiana Roll of Attorneys website has moved into the 21st century and I like it.
More

Finding that work/life balance

Jennifer Nelson
January 22, 2013
Comments(0)
In a recent unscientific poll conducted on our website, more than half of respondents said their top legal-related New Year’s resolution is to have a better work/life balance.
More

Overweight women more likely to be found guilty by skinny men, study says

Jennifer Nelson
January 16, 2013
Comments(0)
If you are fat and a woman, hope that you don’t find yourself facing a jury filled with thin males. A recent study by the Department of Psychology at Yale University found that thin males were more likely to find a woman guilty if she was obese than if she was thin.
More

Studying law online

Jennifer Nelson
January 3, 2013
Comments(0)
Schools across the country are offering more law-related classes online, and they aren’t just for enrolled students.
More

Competition calls out poor, rambling writing

Jennifer Nelson
December 19, 2012
Comments(0)
Know someone who could use a crash course in cutting to the chase? Ever read a legal document and thought that paragraphs of text could be reduced? Then perhaps you should nominate examples of unclear and bad language that could cause harm.
More

Electoral College documents in Indianapolis court

Jennifer Nelson
December 7, 2012
Comments(0)
Those of you who paid attention in government classes or have a nose for history may already know the role the U.S. District Courts play with Electoral College Documents. I recently learned that a court in each state is required to house a set of Electoral College documents for safekeeping.
More
Page  << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >> pager
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT