ILBlogs

First Impressions
Jennifer Mehalik
More First Impressions

Recent Blog Posts

Lawyers vs. non-lawyers

Jennifer Mehalik
September 4, 2008
Comments(0)
The race for the next president of the United States is Democrats vs. Republicans, but it’s also lawyers vs. non-lawyers. Both Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Joe Biden have law degrees, whereas on the Republican side Sen. John McCain and Gov....
More

Busy day at 7th Circuit

Jennifer Mehalik
September 3, 2008
Comments(0)
Seventeen opinions. That’s how many the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals released yesterday. When I first checked the court’s Web site to prepare our opinions list, there was the normal number of opinions – about four or five. Then, as Indiana...
More

No jury duty for nursing moms

Jennifer Mehalik
September 2, 2008
Comment(1)
According to a recent article from the National Law Journal, more and more states have passed laws exempting nursing mothers from jury service. Indiana isn’t one of those states, although we have a new law in effect regarding nursing...
More

Budget-busting judges

Jennifer Mehalik
August 29, 2008
Comments(0)
From IL reporter Michael Hoskins, who attended the Aug. 28 Commission on Courts meeting: Financial woes between courts and county officials can be found statewide, even nationally, in these tough economic times. Chances are it’s going to get worse. That’s why...
More

Firm ‘greens’ new space

Jennifer Mehalik
August 28, 2008
Comments(0)
Going “green” has been a hot topic for the past couple of years and plenty of Indiana firms are getting in on the act. Firms are seeing more of a focus on environmental and green legal issues, and Ice Miller even...
More

Fight may influence jury

Jennifer Mehalik
August 26, 2008
Comments(0)
Here’s something that doesn’t happen every day – a manslaughter trial is postponed due to fighting between the accused and the victim’s families. In what sounds like something that would only happen in a television legal drama, the families got into...
More

Bye bye to VP Bayh

Jennifer Mehalik
August 25, 2008
Comments(0)
Indiana has missed its chance to send another Hoosier to the White House. With Saturday’s announcement that the Democratic Party’s presumptive candidate for president Sen. Barack Obama chose Delaware Sen. Joe Biden as his vice presidential candidate, the supporters of Sen....
More

Buying booze at 18?

Jennifer Mehalik
August 20, 2008
Comments(0)
College presidents around the country have come together to unite against binge drinking on campuses. They aren’t working together to develop and implement programs to educate high school and college students about the dangers of binge drinking. They aren’t going to...
More
Page  << 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 >> 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