ILBlogs

First Impressions
Jennifer Mehalik
More First Impressions

Recent Blog Posts

Slow economy, fewer mergers

Jennifer Mehalik
October 8, 2008
Comments(0)
Here’s more proof that law firms are struggling in this economy: opportunities for mergers are lessening. When I think of the economy worsening, I think law firms that are teetering on the brink of going under would try to find another...
More

Judicial candidates, Facebook

Jennifer Mehalik
October 6, 2008
Comments(2)
Some local candidates for judge in Indiana are turning to the Internet to spread the word about their campaigns – but they aren’t just creating election Web sites. Some have taken the leap into the social media world and created Facebook...
More

More ISBA tidbits

Jennifer Mehalik
October 3, 2008
Comments(0)
From IL reporter Michael Hoskins: Five newer faces on the federal bench (or at least, ones in relatively new roles) came together Thursday afternoon at the ISBA annual meeting. They were Magistrate Jane Magnus-Stinson, selected about two years ago to replace...
More

Tidbits on the ISBA

Jennifer Mehalik
October 2, 2008
Comments(0)
During a conversation today with Indiana Lawyer reporter Rebecca Berfanger, the incoming Indiana State Bar Association president mentioned something that caught our attention: Not only does he have a Facebook page, but the ISBA has a Facebook group page. Bill Jonas...
More

Court oversight neglected

Jennifer Mehalik
September 30, 2008
Comments(0)
Hey, there. I’ve found myself in a bit of a pickle financially and need around $700 billion. Can you lend it to me without me telling you what I need it for? Thanks. But by the way, if I don’t repay...
More

Pay disparity in legal jobs

Jennifer Mehalik
September 29, 2008
Comments(0)
Women attorneys continue to make less than men. It doesn’t shock or even surprise me. There’s no disputing that on average, women in all types of professions make less than men, often for doing the same job. It’s been that...
More

Yes, felons can vote here

Jennifer Mehalik
September 25, 2008
Comments(0)
Indiana may have made national headlines for its strict voter ID laws this year, but when it comes to felons being able to vote, Indiana is one of the better states in the country. In Indiana, imprisoned felons can’t vote, but...
More

Meditations for attorneys

Jennifer Mehalik
September 23, 2008
Comments(0)
Lawyers are an analytical bunch, but are they also reflective and meditative? The American Bar Association has just released a new book, “The Reflective Counselor: Daily Meditations for Lawyers,” in hopes of helping attorneys find balance in their lives. The 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