{"id":53002,"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-5.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"sherry-colb-archive-5","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/sherry-colb-archive-5.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
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n

THE BENEFITS OF RANDOM DRUG TESTING:
WHY THE SUPREME COURT’S RECENT DECISION APPROVING ITS USE \n\nIN PUBLIC SCHOOLS MAY BE CORRECT<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb discusses the Supreme \n\nCourt’s recent decision in Board of Education v. Pottawatomie. There, the \n\nCourt held, 5-4, that it was constitutional for a school district to have a \n\npolicy of drug-testing all middle school and high school students involved in \n\nextracurrical activities. Colb argues that while the Court majority may have \n\nreached the right result, the reasoning it used to get there was severely \n\nflawed. Colb also explains why random or generalized drug-testing may be \n\nsuperior to a system that tests only those students who teachers suspect may \n\nbe taking drugs.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Jul. 03, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE OSTRICH APPROACH TO CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION:
A SUPREME COURT DECISION ABOUT PRISONERS’ FIFTH \n\nAMENDMENT RIGHTS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb argues that the \n\nSupreme Court’s decision, issued earlier this month, in McKune v. Lile is \n\nincorrect. There, a five-justice majority of the Court upheld as \n\nconstitutional a Kansas prison policy requiring sex offenders to enter a \n\ntreatment program in which they must confess all prior crimes without a grant \n\nof immunity. Colb argues, however, that the policy, far from being \n\nconsitutional, actually violated two independent lines of Court precedent \n\ninterpreting the Fifth Amendment.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Jun. 19, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHY KOSHER FRAUD STATUTES AREN’T KOSHER:
THE SECOND CIRCUIT ENFORCES THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb discusses a recent \n\nfederal court of appeals decision invalidating New York’s Kosher Fraud \n\nStatutes on the ground that they violate the Constitution’s Establishment \n\nClause. Are there many meanings of “Kosher,” or a single meaning that the \n\nless observant fail to live up to? Colb, who was brought up in an Orthodox \n\nhousehold, explains the details of the debate, argues for the “multiple \n\nmeanings” position, and explains one type of Kosher fraud statute that would \n\nbe constitutional.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Jun. 05, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SENTENCING WHILE STONED:
WHY A JUDGE’S PRIVATE USE OF MARIJUANA \n\n MAY CALL HIS SENTENCING CAPACITY INTO QUESTION<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb discusses two Arizona \n\ndeath row inmates’ attempts to get new sentencing hearings based on the fact \n\nthat the judge who sentenced them was later convicted of marijuana use. As \n\nColb discusses, the case raise a number of questions: Does a judge’s \n\npersonal use of marijuana affect the validity of the sentences he imposes? \n\nIf so, must the judge be proven to have been intoxicated at the time the \n\nsentence was handed down? And, even if there is no such proof, is it \n\nacceptable for a drug-using judge to have sentenced drug users for drug \n\ncrimes or other crimes?\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, May. 22, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

SEX, DEATH, AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT:
A RECENT FIRST CIRCUIT CASE IGNORES FREE SPEECH PRECEDENTS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, University of Pennsylvania visiting law professor, and \n\nRutgers law professor Sherry Colb discusses a recent federal appellate \n\ndecision with important First Amendment implications. The decision upheld a \n\nMassachusetts statute that banned shooting (except by law enforcement \n\npersonnel in the line of duty) at images of human beings and human-shaped \n\ntargets. Colb argues that the decision was not only in error but, worse, in \n\nsharp conflict with a line of binding Supreme Court precedents that the \n\nappeals court failed even to mention. \n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, May. 08, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A RECENT SUPREME COURT CASE ON THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT AND QUALIFIED IMMUNITY BOTH EXPOSES AND HIDES THE CRUELTY OF PRISON <\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, University of Pennsylvania visiting law professor, and \n\nRutgers law professor Sherry Colb discusses the case of Hope v. Pelzer, in \n\nwhich the Supreme Court heard oral argument last week. Colb explains the \n\ncase’s two central issues: First, what constitutes “cruel and unusual” \n\npunishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment? Second, when are prison \n\nguards on notice that the punishment they inflict for prisoners’ disciplinary \n\ninfractions violates the Eighth Amendment?\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Apr. 24, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A SECOND LOOK AT EXECUTING THE MENTALLY RETARDED:
THE MEANING OF “CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS”<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, University of Pennsylvania visiting law professor, and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb uses a current Supreme Court case, relating to the constitutionality of executing mentally retarded persons, to discuss a curious feature of the Eighth Amendment — which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishments.” As Colb notes, notwithstanding the Amendment’s highly substantive text, the Court has tended to read it primarily as a source of procedural protection. Colbs offers an interesting explanation of why this might be.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Apr. 10, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

THE ANDREA YATES VERDICT:
A NATION IN DENIAL ABOUT MENTAL ILLNESS<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, University of Pennsylvania visiting law professor, and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb offers an explanation of how Andrea Yates could, at the same time, both be mentally ill and “seem” sane in the eyes of the public and the law. Colb contends that insanity law and the public imagination are out of step with psychiatric knowledge of mental illness — and uses Poe’s “The Telltale Heart” to illustrate her point.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Mar. 27, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

PRIVACY, PROCREATION, AND DYING:
SHOULD THE LAW PERMIT A WOMAN WHO HAS THE GENE FOR EARLY \n ONSET ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE TO HAVE A GENETICALLY-SCREENED \nCHILD?<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, University of Pennsylvania visiting law professor, and \nRutgers law professor Sherry Colb puts a recent medical controversy into a \nlegal context. The controversy concerns a woman who has a gene that \nguarantees she will eventually die of early-onset Alzheimer’s disease, and \nwho chose with her husband to have a child genetically screened to be free of \nthe disease. Colb considers the constitutional ramifications if, as has been \nsuggested, states were to ban certain parents — those who are likely to die \nin a few years of genetic disease — from procreating.
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Mar. 13, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

WHY THE CLONED CAT MAKES THE CASE AGAINST HUMAN CLONING<\/a>\n\n
\nFindLaw columnist, University of Pennsylvania visiting law professor, and Rutgers law professor Sherry Colb addresses the following provocative question: Is there a universal reason, beyond individual religious beliefs, to support the legal ban on human cloning currently being considered by the Senate? Colb argues that a close look at pet cloning helps provide just such a reason.\n\n
\n<\/span>\nWednesday, Feb. 27, 2002<\/span>\n<\/p>\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\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