{"id":52950,"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\/scripts\/david\/new_index-html.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"new_index-html","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/scripts\/david\/new_index-html.html","title":{"rendered":"FindLaw’s Writ – Guest Columnists"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/td>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n
JOANNA GROSSMAN AND DEBORAH BRAKE<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Reviving Title VII’s Protection Against Pay Discrimination In the Wake of the Supreme Court’s Harsh Decision: A Call for Congressional Action <\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman, and FindLaw guest columnist and University of Pittsburgh law professor Deborah Brake, together argue that Congress should pass a statute effectively reversing the recent, 5-4 Supreme Court Ledbetter decision regarding employment discrimination. Grossman and Brake explain why they believe the decision — which opted for the harshest of three possible rules as to when a pay discrimination claim is timely — will put an end to many legitimate and serious claims, unless Congress intervenes. In their analysis, Grossman and Brake draw upon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent in Ledbetter, which, they note, is especially relevant in light of the Justice’s noted prior career of litigating sex discrimination issues. \n<\/span><\/td><\/tr>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
JOANNA GROSSMAN AND DEBORAH BRAKE<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Reviving Title VII’s Protection Against Pay Discrimination In the Wake of the Supreme Court’s Harsh Decision: A Call for Congressional Action <\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman, and FindLaw guest columnist and University of Pittsburgh law professor Deborah Brake, together argue that Congress should pass a statute effectively reversing the recent, 5-4 Supreme Court Ledbetter decision regarding employment discrimination. Grossman and Brake explain why they believe the decision — which opted for the harshest of three possible rules as to when a pay discrimination claim is timely — will put an end to many legitimate and serious claims, unless Congress intervenes. In their analysis, Grossman and Brake draw upon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent in Ledbetter, which, they note, is especially relevant in light of the Justice’s noted prior career of litigating sex discrimination issues. \n<\/span><\/td>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
ERIC SINROD<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Page Title
Page Sub Title<\/span><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nArticle Description\n\n<\/span>
\nThursday, Oct. 27, 2005<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n<\/p><\/td><\/tr> \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Book Review<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n\n\n\n\n
KIMBERLY YURACKO<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Finding Equality in Difference: An Excellent New Book Considers What Twenty-First Century Legal Feminism Should Look Like <\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n \nFindLaw book reviewer and Northwestern law professor Kimbery Yuracko weighs in on FindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb’s recent book, “When Sex Counts: Making Babies and Making Law.” Yuracko argues that Colb’s version of feminism, as expressed in her discussions of reproductive rights and related issues, is to be highly praised — because it provides both a nuanced, insightful theoretical framework with which to analyze such issues, and also specific, real-world answers that take into account realities about incentives and how people tend to behave. \n<\/span>
\n\nFriday, Jul. 06, 2007<\/span>
\n\n

\n\n<\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n \n \n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n \n\n\n\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n\n\n\n<\/tr>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\u00a0Columns<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/td>\n\n\n\nArchive<\/a>\u00a0<\/td>\n\n\n\n<\/tr>\n\n\n\n
<\/td>\n\n\n\n<\/tr>\n\n\n\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
JOANNA GROSSMAN AND DEBORAH BRAKE<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Reviving Title VII’s Protection Against Pay Discrimination In the Wake of the Supreme Court’s Harsh Decision: A Call for Congressional Action <\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman, and FindLaw guest columnist and University of Pittsburgh law professor Deborah Brake, together argue that Congress should pass a statute effectively reversing the recent, 5-4 Supreme Court Ledbetter decision regarding employment discrimination. Grossman and Brake explain why they believe the decision — which opted for the harshest of three possible rules as to when a pay discrimination claim is timely — will put an end to many legitimate and serious claims, unless Congress intervenes. In their analysis, Grossman and Brake draw upon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent in Ledbetter, which, they note, is especially relevant in light of the Justice’s noted prior career of litigating sex discrimination issues. <\/span>
\nThursday, Jul. 12, 2007<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n
JOANNA GROSSMAN AND DEBORAH BRAKE<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Reviving Title VII’s Protection Against Pay Discrimination In the Wake of the Supreme Court’s Harsh Decision: A Call for Congressional Action <\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nFindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman, and FindLaw guest columnist and University of Pittsburgh law professor Deborah Brake, together argue that Congress should pass a statute effectively reversing the recent, 5-4 Supreme Court Ledbetter decision regarding employment discrimination. Grossman and Brake explain why they believe the decision — which opted for the harshest of three possible rules as to when a pay discrimination claim is timely — will put an end to many legitimate and serious claims, unless Congress intervenes. In their analysis, Grossman and Brake draw upon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dissent in Ledbetter, which, they note, is especially relevant in light of the Justice’s noted prior career of litigating sex discrimination issues. <\/span>
\nThursday, Jul. 12, 2007<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n
VIKRAM DAVID AMAR<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Supreme Court Denies Plaintiffs Standing to Challenge Bush Administration Activities That They Allege Violated the Establishment Clause: What This Decision, and Others This Term, Reveal About the Court<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nFindLaw columnist and U.C. Hastings law professor Vikram Amar discusses both the practical significance of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on taxpayer standing to challenge alleged Establishment Clause violations, and how this ruling and others reflect on the nature of the Roberts Court. Amar considers, for example, both Justice Kennedy’s pivotal role at the Court, and what he deems an unfortunate tendency to look to precedent over principle when drawing constitutional lines. <\/span>
\nFriday, Jul. 06, 2007<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n
VIKRAM DAVID AMAR<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Supreme Court Denies Plaintiffs Standing to Challenge Bush Administration Activities That They Allege Violated the Establishment Clause: What This Decision, and Others This Term, Reveal About the Court<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nFindLaw columnist and U.C. Hastings law professor Vikram Amar discusses both the practical significance of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on taxpayer standing to challenge alleged Establishment Clause violations, and how this ruling and others reflect on the nature of the Roberts Court. Amar considers, for example, both Justice Kennedy’s pivotal role at the Court, and what he deems an unfortunate tendency to look to precedent over principle when drawing constitutional lines. <\/span>
\nFriday, Jul. 06, 2007<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n
ERIC SINROD<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Page Title
Page Sub Title<\/span><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nArticle Description<\/span>
\nThursday, Oct. 27, 2005<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n
KURT RUSSELL<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Page Title
Page Sub Title<\/span><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nArticle Description<\/span>
\nThursday, Oct. 27, 2005<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n
MICHAEL C. DORF<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
A Supreme Court Order Affords Some Insight Into The Roberts Court’s View of Roe v. Wade: Must Prison Officials Transport an Inmate to an Abortion Clinic? <\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nWill the Roberts Court eventually overrule Roe v. Wade? FindLaw columnist and Columbia law professor extracts some evidence of what some of the Justices’ thinking may be — by closely examining the context of a brief, recent Supreme Court. The order left intact a lower court’s decision to compel a prison to transport a female inmate to a clinic for an abortion — despite Justice Thomas’s having opted to temporarily stay the order to allow full Court consideration. Dorf examines, among other issues, why two open Roe opponents, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas, opted not to dissent from this order; and explains why the lower court’s order was predicated on Roe v. Wade. <\/span>
\nWednesday, Oct. 26, 2005<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n
JULIE HILDEN<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Advancing The Right To Voice Dissent Within the Government:
The Supreme Court’s Opportunity To Reinvigorate the First Amendment for Public Employees<\/span><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nFindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden discusses a recently-argued Supreme Court case involving a fight between an L.A. Deputy District Attorney and his bosses. The Deputy D.A. thought a defense attorney deserved to know more about his investigation of the basis for a problematic search warrant; his bosses disagreed, and, he says, penalized him for voicing his views. As Hilden explains, two key Supreme Court precedents still leave some ambiguity when it comes to First Amendment protections for job-related public employee speech — and this case could give the Court a chance to clear up that ambiguity. <\/span>
\nTuesday, Oct. 25, 2005<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n
JONNA M. SPILBOR<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
The Murder of Pamela Vitale, Famed Defense Attorney Daniel Horowitz’s Wife:
Though a Suspect is Now in Custody, He May Get Off on A Reasonable Doubt Defense<\/span><\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nFindLaw guest columnist, criminal defense attorney, and frequent TV legal commentator Jonna Spilbor discusses the high-profile recent investigation of the murder of Pamela Vitale, wife of criminal defense attorney Daniel Horowitz. The police have arrested a suspect, sixteen year old Scott Dyleski. But as Spilbor explains, some details of the crime scene evidence, combined with statements by Horowitz and the presence of another possible suspect, might combine — unless DNA evidence is forthcoming — to raise reasonable doubt about Dyleski’s guilt. <\/span>
\nMonday, Oct. 24, 2005<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n
JOHN W. DEAN<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Waiting For The Valerie Plame Wilson Grand Jury: The Big Question Is Whether Dick Cheney Was a Target <\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\nFindLaw columnist and former counsel to the president John Dean discusses the various possible outcomes of the Valerie Plame leak grand jury investigation, headed by Chicago U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Dean addresses a number of key issues, including: Is the investigation likely to result in indictments? If so, of whom? What are the constitutional limits on indictments on those high up in the executive branch? What aspects of the evidence are likely to seem especially significant to Fitzgerald, as he decides whether a leak merits an indictment? If the leaks happened, will their motivation matter? <\/span>
\nFriday, Oct. 21, 2005<\/span>
\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n