{"id":52998,"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\/sherry-colb-archive-1.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"sherry-colb-archive-1","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/sherry-colb-archive-1.html","title":{"rendered":"Sherry Colb Archive"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n \n
\n \n\n
\n

Legal Commentary: Sherry Colb Archive<\/h1>\n\n
\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\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\n\n

WHEN IS DENIAL OF COVERAGE FOR CONTRACEPTION GENDER DISCRIMINATION?\n<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb discusses the EEOC’s\nrecent ruling that denial of insurance coverage for contraception may\nconstitute gender discrimination. The basic issue, Colb explains, is\nwhether\nwomen are denied coverage for prescriptions that are analogous to those for\nwhich men enjoy coverage. But what “male” drug or device provides the\nproper\nanalogy to birth control pills? A condom, as some employers argue? A\nhypertension drug, as the EEOC believes? Or Viagra, as feminism might\nsuggest? Colb offers a thought-provoking answer.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Jan. 03, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE UNPRINCIPLED JURISPRUDENCE OF JUSTICE SCALIA<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, Rutgers law professor, and former Supreme Court clerk\nSherry Colb examines the jurisprudence of Justice Scalia on free speech\nissues. Scalia — a major force behind the Supreme Court’s recent Bush v.\nGore election decision — is less principled than he claims, Colb argues,\nfor\nhe generally rules to protect speech he likes and disfavor speech he\ndislikes. In the election decision, Colb contends, Scalia followed this\ntrend — suppressing voters’ message that Gore should be President because\nhe\ndisagreed with it.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Dec. 20, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHAT COUNTS AS “VOTING”? THE ELECTION’S CRUCIAL QUESTION<\/a>\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb examines the current controversies over whether a voter who only dimples his ballot has voted, and over how to count the vote of a voter who meant to punch the hole for Gore, but punched the hole for Buchanan instead. Using analogies to everyday events such as buying a train ticket or filling in the bubbles on a standardized test form, Professor Colb helps to clarify our perceptions about what should, or should not, count as voting.\n
\nWednesday, Dec. 06, 2000<\/span>\n<\/span><\/p>\n\n

WHAT IS, AND IS NOT, WRONG WITH THE DEATH PENALTY<\/a>\n\n
\nThe Presidential candidates’ pro-death penalty consensus has lessened our society’s serious consideration of the arguments for and against the death penalty. FindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb takes a thoughtful look at death penalty opponents’ arguments and finds some of them less persuasive than they appear. However, she also explains why, in the end, she still favors abolition.\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Nov. 22, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

WHY RIGHTS FOR GAYS AND LESBIANS ARE NOT “SPECIAL” RIGHTS<\/a>\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb discusses the claim, recently put forward on both the Supreme Court and the national political stage, that granting rights to gays and lesbians would be unfairly granting “special” rights. Professor Colb explains why this claim is not, in her view, persuasive when one examines the theories behind federal anti-discrimination law protecting other groups.
<\/span>\nWednesday, Nov. 08, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

DRUG TESTS AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT<\/a>\n\n
\nRutgers Law Professor Sherry Colb comments on the recent Supreme Court case addressing the drug-testing of pregnant women and argues that the constitutional problems with such testing would still remain, even if warrants and probable cause had existed.\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Oct. 25, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n

WHY GEORGE W. BUSH’S POSITION ON RU-486 IS IN TENSION WITH HIS POSITION ON PARTIAL BIRTH ABORTION<\/a>\n
\nRutgers Law Professor and former Blackmun clerk Sherry Colb contends that George W. Bush’s stand on “partial birth” abortion is inconsistent with his stand on RU486.
\n<\/span>\nMonday, Oct. 23, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

THE FROZEN EMBRYO ANALOGY<\/a>
\nA Rutgers law professor examines the Supreme Court’s partial birth abortion decision in light of cases involving disputes over frozen embryos.\n
\n<\/span>\nThursday, Jul. 13, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

KING SOLOMON IN THE 21 CENTURY<\/a>
\nA Rutgers law professor analyzes the Supreme Court’s recent decision addressing parents’ ability to control the visitation rights of those who want to spend time with their children.\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Jun. 28, 2000<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n

DECONSTRUCTING DIALLO<\/a>
\n\n
\n<\/span>\nFriday, Mar. 31, 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\n\n\n<\/div><\/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