Advertisement

Close

Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf explains why President-elect Donald Trump’s conflicts of interests are problematic for the country. Dorf argues that the primary risk is that a Trump administration will pursue policies that further Trump’s business interests at the expense of the national interest. Dorf also points out two other risks posed by Trump’s conflicts of interest: the possibility of unjust enrichment and the cultural shift that corruption at the top could catalyze.

Advertisement

Close

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman describes a recent decision by a Texas appellate court applying that state’s parentage laws to a situation involving a man who donated his sperm so his friend could become pregnant. Grossman notes that while resolution of the “donor versus dad” question differs from state to state depending on the particular laws that apply, the facts of this case proved straightforward given the language of the Texas statute at issue.

Advertisement

Close

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies considers how the politics of quiescence and backlash might manifest itself in the areas of criminal justice and national security. As to national security, Margulies predicts that backlash will be particularly potent, but as to criminal justice, his poor decisions that disproportionately affect poor people of color will unable to generate the same political resonance.

Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb addresses the argument that nonhuman animals’ lack of moral agency justifies our denying them the right to live free of our violence. Colb contends that the notion that we owe duties only to those who can repay us actually reflects an impoverished morality.

Marci A. Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, describes three individuals named to lead Donald Trump’s presidency who will threaten already-vulnerable communities. Hamilton argues that Mike Pence, Stephen Bannon, and Jeffrey Sessions are likely to reduce or eliminate the rights of gays, women, minorities, and children over the next four years unless the private sector steps up.

Chapman University, Fowler School of Law, professor Ronald D. Rotunda discusses the controversial designation of Maajid Nawaz, a practicing Muslim, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born former Muslim, as “hateful extremists” by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). Rotunda argues that SPLC should reconsider its criteria for labeling someone an extremist, and he points out ways in which SPLC’s labeling system is inconsistent and misguided.

Illinois Law dean and professor Vikram David Amar proposes a solution to the problem of the “faithless” elector—a person who pledges to vote in a particular way but then who wants to cast his or her electoral college vote in a different direction. Amar provides specific language that states could implement as law to address these rogue individuals whose actions could alter a presidential election result.

In the aftermath of the presidential election, George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan considers what it would mean on the ground for the rule of law to be eroded to the point of obliteration. Buchanan describes how Trump and Republican might play constitutional hardball in a manner that spells the end of the rule of law.

Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf shares some of the lessons he has learned as a vegan animal rights advocate, and explains how they apply to other policy areas. In particular, Dorf argues that in order to build a world in which presidential candidates do not pander to humanity’s basest otherizing instincts, we should aim to persuade our fellow humans of our point of view, not merely to organize to outvote them.

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman comments on a recent decision by a federal district court in Pennsylvania holding that Title VII bans sexual orientation discrimination. Grossman describes the gradual recognition of sexual orientation discrimination as a cognizable injury under Title VII and praises the court for coming to the correct conclusion.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies describes the typical pattern in politics of quiescence and backlash. As Margulies explains, it is natural for the supporters of the winning candidate to reach a sense of quiescence after the election, while the supporters of the losing candidate formulate a backlash. Margulies points out that this pattern exists regardless of whether the winning candidate is a Republican or a Democrat.

John W. Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, discusses the possible consequences of the many lawsuits involving President-elect Donald Trump on his presidency. Dean explains why Trump’s situation is different from other presidents-elect who carried civil lawsuits with them into the Oval Office—Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, and Bill Clinton.

Marci A. Hamilton, a Fox Distinguished Scholar in the Program for Research on Religion at the University of Pennsylvania, explains how Republicans’ victories for president and both houses of Congress impose real accountability on the Republican party to get things done. Hamilton argues that with Republicans controlling these branches, they have no excuse for failing to fully come through on all the changes they have promised, including replacing Obamacare, building a wall on the Mexican border, creating jobs, and cutting taxes.

Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on the idea of a sexual advance directive—a proposed legal device that could provide consent or designate an agent to provide consent in advance of an anticipated persistent period of legal incompetence. Colb explains how a sexual advance directive purports to work, describes some limitations of it, and proposes an alternative solution that addresses those limitations.

Chapman University Fowler School of Law professor Ronald D. Rotunda explains how courts and the executive branch are circumventing the absence of appropriations from Congress and points out that this can have negative unintended consequences.

Illinois law dean and law professor Vikram David Amar describes three takeaway lessons from FBI Director James Comey’s decision to comment on the ongoing Clinton email investigation a second time. Amar argues that (1) with respect to investigators, sometimes less formal independence means more latitude to act out, (2) the FBI director should not operate outside of DOJ bounds, and (3) the DOJ policy of not commenting on ongoing investigations arises from the Constitution.

George Washington law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan explains why the 2016 election is an opportunity for young voters to have the unusual opportunity to make a difference in their future. Buchanan argues that voting for Hillary Clinton is the only way to exercise that power in a way that gives young people hope for a positive future.

Cornell University law professor Michael C. Dorf explains how under defamation law, Donald Trump may be vulnerable to defamation lawsuits by the women he accused of lying about contact with him, and why, at the same time, any defamation lawsuits he might pursue against those women would be unlikely to succeed.

Cornell University law professor Joseph Margulies discusses the so-called “Ferguson Effect,” a hypothesis that increased public scrutiny of police violence correlates to higher rates of violent crime. Margulies argues that even if the Ferguson Effect is real—which he does not concede—the alternative of Zero Tolerance and other similar policies wreak havoc on poor communities of color. Margulies makes the case for communities having their own say in how they are policed.

John W. Dean, former counsel to President Nixon, takes a close look at Donald Trump’s twofold strategy to win the election—Trump’s own electoral map, and his attempts to suppress voters. Dean argues that the only way for Trump to win is to bully his way into the White House, and Dean calls upon Democrats to prevent Trump and his supporters from using physical intimidation to suppress the vote.