{"id":52540,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/michael-dorf-archive-1.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"michael-dorf-archive-1","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/michael-dorf-archive-1.html","title":{"rendered":"Michael Dorf Archive"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n \n\n\n\t\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Legal Commentary – Michael Dorf Archive<\/h1>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n
<\/td>\n

Archive<\/a><\/h4><\/td>\n <\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n\n

WE NEED A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Columbia law professor Michael Dorf highlights a crucial consequence of the \nU.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions of December 4 (remanding to the Florida Supreme Court) and \nDecember 9 (staying the statewide manual recount the Florida Supreme Court had ordered). These \ndecisions, Professor Dorf argues, held that citizens have no right to vote in Presidential elections. \nThat should be changed, he argues, by Constitutional amendment.\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Dec. 13, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n

PRECEDENTS FOR THIS BITTERLY FOUGHT ELECTION<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist Michael Dorf, who is Vice Dean and profesor of law at\nColumbia Law School, examines the roots of the bitter legal battles that\nhave\ncharacterized this closely fought Presidential election. He traces the\nlegalization of our politics from Watergate, to the Jones suit, to the\nrecent\nimpeachment proceedings against President Clinton.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Nov. 29, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE ELECTION DISPUTE POSES A FAMILIAR PROBLEM FOR THE COURTS<\/a>\n
\nColumbia Law School professor and Vice Dean Michael C. Dorf counters the oft-heard argument that the Presidential election’s disputes should not be brought to court. Professor Dorf also notes, however, that as is typical in law, a tradeoff between rule-enforcement and justice may have to occur for these disputes to be resolved.
<\/span>\nMonday, Nov. 13, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n

BUSH’S AFFIRMATIVE ACCESS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Columbia law professor Michael C. Dorf explains the\nmeaning of George W. Bush’s “affirmative access,” and why it is very\nunlikely to be as effective as affirmative action.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Nov. 01, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

CLERKSHIP CHAOS<\/a>\n\n
\nColumbia Law Professor and Vice Dean Michael Dorf discusses the reasons for the \nrecent fiasco in federal judges’ hiring of law clerks, and suggests a possible solution.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Oct. 18, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

BUSH VERSUS BUSH<\/a>\n
\nAs part of his education policy, George W. Bush has proposed providing federal grants \nto the states for a number of programs. A Columbia Law School professor questions \nwhether these programs would survive the scrutiny of the Justices he would appoint to \nthe Supreme Court.
<\/span>\nMonday, Sep. 11, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

A REPLY TO THE BEST DEFENSE<\/a>
\nColumbia Law School Professor Michael Dorf responds to Barton Aronson’s defense of \nthe criminal justice system, in which the federal prosecutor questioned the need to \nincrease funding for indigent criminal defendants.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Aug. 09, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

THE CASE FOR A GORE-CLINTON TICKET<\/a>
\nA Columbia Law School professor explains why there is no constitutional obstacle to \nWilliam Jefferson Clinton becoming the first Vice President of the 21 century.
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Jul. 31, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

DEATH AND TAXES<\/a>
\nA Columbia law professor surveys the recent support for abolishing the death penalty \ndue to concern that an innocent person may be executed, and concludes that this \ndevelopment highlights a more fundamental problem in the criminal justice system: the \nlack of adequate funding for indigent criminal defendants.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Jun. 21, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

THEY ARE ALL ACTIVISTS NOW<\/a>
\nA Columbia law professor considers what it means to be branded an “activist” justice — \nand examines who’s making the charge.
\n<\/span>\nMonday, May 01, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n
\u00a0Most Recent<\/a> | Page 5<\/a> | Page 4<\/a> | Page 3<\/a> | Page 2<\/a> | Page 1<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n
—<\/td>\n\n<\/tr>\n\n<\/table>\n\n<\/div>\n
\n \n Was this helpful?<\/span>\n \n Yes<\/span>\n \n \n \n <\/path>\n <\/g>\n \n \n <\/rect>\n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n \n No<\/span>\n \n \n \n \n <\/g>\n \n \n \n <\/clipPath>\n <\/defs>\n <\/svg>\n <\/i>\n <\/button>\n <\/div>\n <\/span>\n