{"id":52544,"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-5.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"michael-dorf-archive-5","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/michael-dorf-archive-5.html","title":{"rendered":"Michael Dorf Archive"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\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
\n

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

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT’S \n\n NEW POSITION ON THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS — AND WHAT \n\nISN’T <\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Columbia Law School Vice Dean and professor Michael \n\nDorf comments on Solicitor General Theodore Olson’s recent decision to inform \n\nthe Supreme Court, through identical footnotes in two briefs, of the Justice \n\nDepartment’s switch of position regarding the proper interpretation of the \n\nSecond Amendment. Dorf disagrees with the new position on the merits, but \n\nsays those critics who have voiced the view that Olson was not entitled to \n\nswitch, or should have announced the switch in some other way, have missed \n\nthe mark entirely.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, May. 15, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AMERICANS’ FAITH IN THE SUPREME COURT–AND IN THE CONSTITUTION:
A NEW SURVEY SHOWS BUSH V. GORE<\/i>‘S EFFECT WAS LIMITED<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Columbia Law School Vice Dean and professor Michael \n\nDorf examines some empirical evidence that conflicts with many commentators’ \n\nprediction that the effect of the Bush v. Gore decision would be to shake the \n\npublic’s faith in the Supreme Court as an institution. Dorf also explains \n\nhow this evidence might suggest a new way to resolve the classic problem of \n\nthe tension between democratic majority rule that is effected through \n\nelective office, and the existence of an appointed Supreme Court that \n\nprotects individual rights even in the face of contrary majority decisions.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, May. 01, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CAN THE LEGAL PROFESSION IMPROVE ITS IMAGE?:
AMERICANS BELIEVE LAWYERS TO BE NECESSARY BUT DISHONEST, SURVEY FINDS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Columbia Law School Vice Dean and professor Michael \n\nDorf comments upon the results of a survey that asked a sample of Americans \n\nwhether they thought lawyers were honest or dishonest, harmful or helpful, \n\nand overcompensated or fairly paid. The survey invites interesting \n\ncomparisons of perceptions of the relative honesty of politicians, police, \n\nand lawyers. Dorf explains why the results may be less disheartening to \n\nlawyers than they appear.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Apr. 17, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

HOW A RECENT, UNANIMOUS SUPREME COURT PUBLIC HOUSING DECISION “EXILES COMPASSION FROM THE PROVINCE OF JUDGING” <\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Columbia Law School Vice Dean and professor Michael Dorf critiques a recent, unanimous Supreme Court decision. At issue is a statute that determines when public housing tenants can be evicted due to relatives’ or guests’ drug activities on their premises. HUD interpreted the statute to allow eviction even when the “tenant did not know, could not foresee, or could not control behavior by other occupants of the unit,” and the Court agreed. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Apr. 03, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

ADMITTING ERROR AND ADMITTING FINGERPRINTS:
IS THERE A SOUND FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE LAW?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Columbia Law School Vice Dean and law professor Michael Dorf discusses two interesting recent rulings by respected U.S. District Judge Louis Pollak. The first ruling found crime-scene fingerprint evidence insufficiently reliable to support an expert’s testimony of a match; however, the second ruling reconsidered and reversed the first, based on additional expert testimony about fingerprint matching. Dorf also examines whether other rules of evidence and principles of law might, despite their lengthy pedigrees, nevertheless lack empirical foundation.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Mar. 20, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHY CONGRESSIONAL POWER TO DECLARE WAR DOES NOT PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE CHECK ON THE PRESIDENT<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Columbia Law School Vice Dean and professor Michael Dorf discusses the Constitutional balance between the President’s and Congress’s war-related powers, and the effect of the War Powers Resolution, in which, in response to the Vietnam War, Congress tried to shift that balance.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Mar. 06, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CAN ONE NATION ARREST THE FOREIGN MINISTER OF ANOTHER?\n
THE WORLD COURT SAYS NO<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Columbia Law School Vice Dean and professor Michael \nDorf discusses an important recent ruling by the International Court of \nJustice. The case addresses the conflict between universal jurisdiction — \nthe asserted right of any nation-state to bring prosecutions in its domestic \ncourts against persons charged with serious human rights violations anywhere \nin the world — and diplomats’ ability to conduct business without fear of \narrest.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Feb. 20, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A BRIEF HISTORY OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE, FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON THROUGH DICK CHENEY<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Columbia Law School Vice Dean and professor Michael Dorf discusses the history of executive privilege, which is likely to be asserted by the Bush Administration in the GAO’s lawsuit against Vice President Cheney. Dorf explains how executive privilege played a role in Aaron’s Burr’s trial, during which Chief Justice John Marshall issued a subpoena to President Thomas Jefferson, and in the Nixon tapes case decided by the Supreme Court. Dorf also explains why, ironically, the D.C. Circuit decision that allowed the proceedings of then-First Lady Hillary Clinton’s health care task to be conducted secretly may also end up helping Cheney succeed in his dispute with the GAO.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Feb. 06, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHAT IS AN “UNLAWFUL COMBATANT,” AND WHY IT MATTERS:
\n THE STATUS OF DETAINED AL QAEDA AND TALIBAN FIGHTERS<\/a>\n\n
\nDorf clarifies the legal status of the al Qaeda and Taliban detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Dorf explains the Geneva Convention test governing whether a detainee is a prisoner of war or an unlawful combatant; considers the consequences of each status for the detainees and the Administration; and discusses the two Supreme Court cases that create the basic legal framework within which the Administration must operate. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Jan. 23, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE LOWER COURTS WORK THROUGH A RECENT SUPREME COURT RULING\n DISTINGUISHING DISCRIMINATORY INTENTIONS FROM \nDISCRIMINATORY EFFECTS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Columbia Law School Vice Dean and professor Michael Dorf discusses the lower court fallout from the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alexander v. Sandoval. As Dorf explains, lower courts have held after Sandoval that a plaintiff can sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act to challenge policies with a discriminatory effect on the handicapped, but a plaintiff cannot sue under a federal civil rights statute to challenge policies with a racially discriminatory effect. Dorf explains the reason for this discrepancy — and suggests the remedy may be an amendment to the federal civil rights statute.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Jan. 09, 2002<\/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