{"id":52999,"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-2.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"sherry-colb-archive-2","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/sherry-colb-archive-2.html","title":{"rendered":"Sherry Colb Archive"},"content":{"rendered":"\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
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\n\n

WHEN COMPASSION GOES UP IN SMOKE: WHAT THE SUPREME COURT’S MEDICAL MARIJUANA CASE TELLS US ABOUT OUR GOVERNMENT <\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb discusses the Supreme Court’s recent 8-0 ruling in the “medical marijuana” case — in which the Court held that federal laws prohibiting marijuana use trump state and local laws attempting to create a compassionate use exception. Colb also raises an interesting conflict between the Court’s concurrence view in this case, and an earlier opinion in the landmark privacy decision Griswold v. Connecticut. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nMonday, May. 21, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHY THE SUPREME COURT SHOULD OVERRULE THE MASSIAH DOCTRINE AND PERMIT MIRANDA ALONE TO GOVERN INTERROGATIONS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb discusses a fundamental criminal procedure question implicitly raised by a recent Supreme Court decision, Texas v. Cobb: Should the Court overrule the Massiah doctrine, which forbids interrogation of an indicted defendant without counsel present? Colb traces the evolution of Massiah, and explains how it differs from the famous Miranda decision that guarantees defendants are “read their rights” before being interrogated.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, May. 09, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

AMTRAK’S COOPERATION WITH THE DRUG ENFORCEMENT\nADMINISTRATION: A FOURTH AMENDMENT ANALYSIS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb discusses Amtrak’s\n\nrecent admission that it turns over the names of cash-paying passengers to\n\nthe Drug Enforcement Administration, and allows drug-sniffing dogs to sniff\n\nthose passengers’ luggage. Colb explains that under Supreme Court precedent,\n\neven though Amtrak counts as a government actor, its conduct — perhaps\n\nshockingly — still would not be held to violate the Fourth Amendment.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Apr. 25, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

RACE VERSUS SEX: THE MULTIPLE MEANINGS OF “REVERSE DISCRIMINATION”<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb notes an odd \n\ndifference between “reverse discrimination” lawsuits in the context of sex, \n\nand that of race: Male plaintiffs’ “reverse discrimination” victories \n\n(allowing men to be nurses, or stay-at-home parents who receive benefits) are \n\noften victories for women too, but white plaintiffs’ “reverse discrimination” \n\nvictories (for example, in challenging affirmative action) are often setbacks \n\nfor African-Americans and members of other minority groups. Colb explains \n\nthe difference, and also discusses the concept of “reverse discrimination” in \n\ntwo other settings: that of love relationships, and that of adoption.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Apr. 11, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF THE INNOCENT<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb discusses the recent\n\nSupreme Court decision in Ohio v. Reiner. Colb analyzes the facts behind\n\nReiner, explains why the Ohio Supreme Court held that a witness who\n\nmaintains her innocence cannot also assert her Fifth Amendment right against\n\nself-incrimination, and argues that the U.S. Supreme Court was right to\n\nreverse Ohio’s highest court on this issue. Colb also contends that, more\n\ngenerally, the popular notion that criminal procedure protects only the\n\nguilty — not the innocent — is incorrect.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Mar. 28, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHY A CORRECTED DISABILITY SHOULD STILL COUNT AS A DISABILITY FOR PURPOSES OF EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION LAW<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb contends that\n\nMassachusetts’ Supreme Judicial Court, currently confronted with the\n\nquestion whether a corrected disability still counts as a disability for purposes of\n\nemployment discrimination law, should answer that indeed, it does. The U.S.\n\nSupreme Court has held to the contrary, reasoning that a disability, once\n\ncorrected, is no longer a disability. Colb points out, however, that a\n\nperson whose hearing is normal by virtue of a hearing aid is still not\n\nviewed by society as equivalent to a person whose hearing is “naturally” normal.\n\nOn the contrary, a hearing aid wearer may suffer stigma very similar to that\n\nsuffered by someone with hearing loss — in that both types of stigma are\n\nsystematic and societal, not idiosyncratic on the part of an isolated\n\nemployer. As a result, Colb argues, both the hearing aid wearer and the\n\nperson with hearing loss should be protected by employment discrimination\n\nlaw.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Mar. 14, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IS USE OF THERMAL HEAT IMAGING A “SEARCH” GOVERNED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb, a specialist in\n\ncriminal procedure, discusses the recently-argued Supreme Court case in\n\nwhich a criminal defendant challenges his conviction for growing marijuana,\n\nclaiming that the government’s use of thermal heat imaging equipment to gain\n\nevidence against him constituted an unconstitutional warrantless search.\n\nColb reviews prior Court precedent, but also employs an ingenious\n\nhypothetical to argue that the Court should go beyond that precedent.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Feb. 28, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

REDEFINING THE STATUS QUO TO INCLUDE THE DISABLED<\/a>\n\n
\nShould Casey Martin win his disability discrimination suit against the PGA\n\nTour, and gain the right to ride in a golf cart rather than walking between\n\ngreens? Was ETS right to respond to a lawsuit by reversing its prior policy\n\nof specially “flagging” the test scores of disabled applicants to business\n\nschool? FindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb discusses\n\nthe way in which these two recent controversies illustrate fundamental\n\nissues in the law of disability discrimination, and relates a personal story\n\nabout how even disabled bar exam takers can suffer unfair treatment.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Feb. 14, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

IS JUSTICE RONNIE WHITE “PRO-CRIMINAL”? EVALUATING ASHCROFT’S ACCUSATION<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb discusses the\n\nsituation of Justice Ronnie White, the African-American Missouri jurist\n\nwhose\n\nfederal judicial nomination was torpedoed by then-Senator John Ashcroft on\n\nthe ground that White was “pro-criminal.” In fact, Colb argues, White’s\n\nrecord shows that he is not “pro-criminal” in any of the senses in which\n\nthat\n\nterm is typically understood. At most, White is an independent-minded\n\ndissenter who is rightly sensitive to racism in the courtroom.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Jan. 31, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE CONTROVERSY OVER THE NETHERLANDS’ NEW EUTHANASIA LEGISLATION<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb examines the\ncontroversial new legislation in the Netherlands which will legalize\nphysician-assisted deaths, not only for terminal patients but also for those\nwho, though not terminal, experience unbearable pain that cannot be\nrelieved.\nAs Colb explains, United States “right to die” proponents have taken a\ndifferent approach, urging the Supreme Court to recognize the right for the\nterminally ill alone. She examines the rationale for limiting “right to\ndie” protections to terminal patients alone, contending that this\nlimitation does not accord with the reason “right to die” proponents believe\nthe right should be recognized in the first place.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Jan. 17, 2001<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\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