{"id":52542,"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-3.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"michael-dorf-archive-3","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/michael-dorf-archive-3.html","title":{"rendered":"Michael Dorf Archive"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n \n\n\n
\n

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

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

DEBATE OVER AN ABA LEGAL ETHICS RULE\n UNDERSCORES LAWYERS’ COMPETING OBLIGATIONS\n TO KEEP SECRET AND TO DISCLOSE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Columbia Law School Vice Dean and professor Michael Dorf discusses the debate over one of the American Bar Association’s recent changes to its ethics rules — which expands the circumstances under which an attorney is permitted to disclose client confidences in order to avert harm.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Aug. 09, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHEN AMERICAN STATES EXECUTE CITIZENS OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES: THE CASE OF GERARDO VALDEZ<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Columbia law school Vice Dean and professor Michael\n\nDorf describes a striking conflict between the views of the International\n\nCourt of Justice, and those of the U.S. Supreme Court, on the following\n\nquestion: What should happen when a foreign national who is sentenced to\n\ndeath in the U.S. was never properly apprised of his treaty-based right to\n\nseek diplomatic intervention from his home country?
\n<\/span>\nTuesday, Jul. 24, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

THE 2000-2001 SUPREME COURT TERM IN REVIEW, PART I<\/a>\n\n
\nIn Part One of a two-part series, FindLaw columnist and Columbia law professor and Vice Dean Michael Dorf explains the salient themes and significance of the decisions of the recently-concluded Supreme Court term — emphasizing, in this Part, Bush v. Gore and the series of cases on federalism and on administrative agencies’ role. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Jun. 27, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n

THE 2000-2001 SUPREME COURT TERM IN REVIEW, PART II
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS: HOW THE JUSTICES DEFIED EXPECTATIONS<\/a>\n\n
\nIn Part Two of a two-part series on the recently-completed Supreme Court term, Findlaw columnist and Columbia Law School Vice Dean and professor Michael Dorf reviews the Court’s individual rights cases, taking issue with those who contend the Justices’ votes are merely a product of political ideology. Dorf details significant side-switching by at least six Justices, across the ideological divide, and contends that were it not for Bush v. Gore, side-switching might have been seen as the hallmark of the Term.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Jul. 11, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n

“CONFUSING” BALLOTS VERSUS “CONFUSING” JURY INSTRUCTIONS: TWO SUPREME COURT CASES CONTRASTED<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Columbia Law School Vice Dean and Professor Michael Dorf contrasts the way the Supreme Court’s recent Penry death penalty decision addressed juror coofusion, with the way Bush v. Gore addressed voter confusion.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Jun. 13, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE SUPREME COURT’S CELL PHONE DECISION: AN UNUSUAL BALANCING ACT BY THE COURT<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, Columbia Vice Dean and law professor, and author Michael Dorf discusses the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bartnicki v. Vopper, which held that under certain circumstances, the First Amendment allows the broadcast of an illegally intercepted cellphone conversation. Dorf uses Bartnicki as a jumping off point to discuss the evolution of the Court’s choice between balancing tests and categorical rules in the First Amendment context. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, May. 30, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HOW RELIABLE IS EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY?: A DECISION BY NEW YORK STATE’S HIGHEST COURT REVEALS UNSETTLING TRUTHS ABOUT JURIES<\/a>\n\n
\nFindlaw columnist, Columbia Law School Vice-Dean and professor, and author \n\nMichael Dorf discusses a recent decision of New York’s highest court to \n\nallow expert testimony on the reliability of eyewitnesses, but only on a \n\ncase-by-case basis. Dorf explains why circumstantial evidence is more \n\nreliable than we think, and eyewitness identification much less so, and \n\ndiscusses the ramifications of the ruling.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, May. 16, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WASHINGTON YANKEES IN KING ARTHUR’S COURT: THE SUPREME\nCOURT JOURNEYS TO 18TH CENTURY ENGLAND TO DEFINE THE RIGHTS OF\n21ST CENTURY AMERICANS<\/a>\n\n
\nMichael Dorf — Vice Dean and professor at Columbia Law School, and\n\nco-author with Laurence Tribe of On Reading the Constitution — uses the\n\nrecent Supreme Court decision in the “seatbelt case,” Atwater v. Lago Vista,\n\nas a window to discuss the Court’s originalism. Dorf also asks whether\n\nJustice Souter, who joined the originalist majority in Atwater, has\n\nabandoned his “living constitution” views to become an originalist.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, May. 02, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE IMPORTANCE OF ACCOUNTING FOR TACTICAL RESPONSES TO\nRULES: A PRINCIPLE THAT APPLIES TO BASKETBALL AND CAMPAIGN\nFINANCE ALIKE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, Columbia Vice Dean and law professor, and avid basketball\n\nplayer and fan Michael C. Dorf offers a careful analysis of the genesis, and\n\npossible effects, of the new NBA rules changes, particularly the lifting of\n\nthe zone defense prohibition. Dorf explains the principle illustrated by\n\nthe NBA rules — that when changing a rule, one must account not only for\n\nthe direct, predictable effects of the change, but also for less\n\npredictable, tactical responses to the change by those affected by it. As\n\nDorf shows, this principle should interest not just basketball fans, but\n\nalso lawyers, and indeed anyone concerned with changes in the law — for the\n\nprinciple affects subjects like tax policy and campaign finance reform, just\n\nas much as it does basketball.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Apr. 18, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION RETURNS TO THE COURTS: A DILEMMA FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION\n<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, Columbia Vice Dean and law professor, and author Michael\n\nDorf notes that two recent decisions — one in which the Supreme Court\n\ngranted review of a case involving affirmative action in government\n\ncontracting, and one in which a Michigan federal district judge struck down\n\nthe University of Michigan’s law school’s policy of taking race into account\n\nin admissions — have put the issue of affirmative action at the forefront\n\nof the national agenda again. Dorf also notes that Bush supporters may urge\n\nthe Administration to side with the white plaintiffs complaining of “reverse\n\ndiscrimination” in these cases. But the Administration should tread\n\ncautiously, Dorf warns; judicial rulings that only color-blind education\n\nsystems can pass constitutional muster will mean Bush’s own education\n\nprogram\n\nwould likely be struck down, too.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Apr. 04, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\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