ILBlogs

First Impressions
Jennifer Mehalik
More First Impressions

Recent Blog Posts

Cat paws & baby formula

Jennifer Mehalik
March 25, 2009
Comments(0)
From IL reporter Michael Hoskins : Every so often, court rulings offer hidden treasurers that tickle the mind with intrigue rather than simple legalese and legal theory. Take Wednesday's two examples from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Neither appeal...
More

Twitter in the courtroom

Jennifer Mehalik
March 23, 2009
Comments(0)
Can Twitter cause a mistrial or possibly taint a trial? Yes it can, if you’ve read any recent news stories about jurors using the social networking tool to “tweet” about their experience on the jury. Some guy in Arkansas sent messages...
More

March distractions

Jennifer Mehalik
March 19, 2009
Comments(0)
Today kicks off the NCAA Men’s Division I Basketball tournament, much to the joy and excitement of many (including myself). Instead of having to take time off work to keep up with your favorite teams or scores, many people can just...
More

Judicial ethical code

Jennifer Mehalik
March 18, 2009
Comments(0)
The Judicial Conference of the United States adopted a revised Code of Conduct yesterday, with one revision focusing on judicial impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. The revised code expands a little on when the appearance of impropriety occurs, but the...
More

Irish justice visits Indy

Jennifer Mehalik
March 16, 2009
Comments(0)
From IL reporter Rebecca Berfanger : While it’s one thing to hear from a law school that it is internationally recognized, it’s a little different to hear that from the Chief Justice of Ireland . “I was glad...
More

Disaster plans at firms

Jennifer Mehalik
March 12, 2009
Comments(0)
A fire in downtown Indianapolis has made two firms thankful they have disaster plans already in place. I spoke with John Trimble at LewisWagner and Peter Pogue at Schultz and Pogue this morning about the fire, and both reiterated the...
More

Generation Y and job loss

Jennifer Mehalik
March 11, 2009
Comment(1)
Is the Generation Y/ “highly praised” generation taking job loss worse than other attorneys or even others their same age in different professions? You definitely have to have a certain type of personality and work ethic to become an attorney: hard...
More

No coffee = firm trouble?

Jennifer Mehalik
March 9, 2009
Comments(0)
If you came to work one morning to find out that your company no long provided free coffee because it wanted to save money, would you be angry, worried, or indifferent? One Chicago firm has reportedly  cut free coffee...
More
Page  << 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 >> 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