- Our Blog
A woman named Grace Choi seems to have come up with a way to 3D print “lipstick, lip gloss, eye shadow, blush, nail polish, brow powder—pretty much everything except foundations and face power” at home. Her company, Mink, uses FDA approved inks (vegetable or edible). The goal is that a consumer could take a picture or using an online image of the makeup, the software would ma ...
Suppose that a code were made and expressed in language sanctioned by the assent of the courts. – Oliver Wendell Holmes (1870) Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes 46 States & 209 statutes Incredibly, commentators have long overlooked one of Holmes’s greatest contributions to American law, namely his contribution to state statutory law.
[W]e decline to carve out from the First Amendment any novel exception. – Chief Justice John Roberts (2010) When we talk about exceptions to the First Amendment’s guaranty of freedom of expression, Justice Frank Murphy’s famous 1942 dictum in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire comes to mind: There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punis ...
This just in: Hollywood hates/fears/plots against Google! The Sony security breach and following leaks have yielded many insights, sort of. If anyone thought Hollywood executives were discrete, that was naive and now debunked. If anyone thought most people knew not to use work email for personal business, that too is shown false.
Toys are a big area for 3D printing, and now someone is printing prototype lightsabers from a fleeting image in a trailer for the new Star Wars movie. As Gerard and I argue in Patents, Meet Napster: 3D Printing and the Digitization of Things, “Advances in 3D printing technology are launching an Industrial Counter-Revolution, and the laws governing the way things are made will n ...
Articles Rights Speech Timothy Zick Vertical Power Michael S. Green Immigration Law and the Myth of Comprehensive Registration Nancy Morawetz & Natasha Fernández-Silber Toward a New Equilibrium in Personal Jurisdiction Charles W. “Rocky” Rhodes & Cassandra Burke Robertson The (Un)Enf ...
For those of you who love constitutional law like I do, here is a Christmas present. I’ve mentioned in some prior posts that Bill of Rights Day in December 1941 was celebrated with a radio drama narrated by Jimmy Stewart that included many Hollywood stars. At the end of that program, FDR gave an address to the nation that expressly contrasted the Bill of Rights with Nazi Germany.
In this week’s New Yorker, Jeannie Suk laments what she perceives as the increasing difficulty in teaching rape to today’s law students. I was a bit surprised in reading Suk’s article because her descriptive account of today’s law school classroom environment regarding rape is at completely at odds with my own.
In my last post, I introduced a set of studies that suggest that parents and nonparents alike prefer to invest about twice as much in child safety as adult safety. For purposes of this post, I want to take that descriptive claim as true and ask: What justifies that differential treatment? One answer is simply that we should respect preferences (almost) regardless of their content.
Successful people often are insecure (though they may hide their insecurity behind a facade of bluster); it is what drives them to success. – Richard Posner (1994) We are experts in self-presentation, in acting a part to further our aims and interests. We have, all of us, a public relations strategy.
For the coming semester, I have decided to try teaching without a casebook. Instead, I have been putting together materials with an emphasis on more recent cases embodying prominent issues in substantive criminal law. Regarding rape and sexual assault, in particular, I feel that the cases used in the major casebooks are too dated and less relevant to students today.
Expert on Berkshire Hathaway? Try this trivia quiz based on Berkshire Beyond Buffett: The Enduring Value of Values. Submit answers to email@example.com. The first 10 people to get all 20 right by December 20 at 5 pm ET win a free signed copy of the book (free shipping within US). (Hint: all answers are easily found in that book!) 1.
(Marco Simons is Legal Director of EarthRights International. He is a graduate of Yale Law School, where he received the Robert L. Bernstein Fellowship in International Human Rights.) Last month, Chicago law professor Eric Posner launched an ill-conceived attack on law school human rights clinics; on my usual blog at EarthRights International (ERI), I wrote a response. (Prof.
Parents: Do you invest more in your child’s safety than your own? Less? Roughly the same amount? I’ve been pondering these questions lately. I have numerous friends who have purchased safer cars once they became parents, or suddenly took an interest in the finest of fine print on warning labels.
I cannot consider the Bill of Rights to be an outworn 18th Century “strait jacket” . . . Its provisions may be thought outdated abstractions by some. And it is true that they were designed to meet ancient evils. But they are the same kind of human evils that have emerged from century to century wherever excessive power is sought by the few at the expense of the many.
The Brown and Garner cases lead me to ask this question: Suppose I am a prosecutor and I conclude that a police officer is guilty of a crime, but I also conclude that no jury will convict given the evidence. What should I do? The most straightforward thought is that I should not bring a charge. It would be irresponsible to charge someone when you feel sure that you cannot win a ...
What do prosecutors and divorce court judges have in common? Although this sounds like the start to a lawyer joke, I think examining the two groups together can yield interesting insights. One commonality is their wide and essentially unreviewable discretion. Prosecutors can decline to charge altogether or can choose which charges to bring.
The American concept of freedom of speech poses a challenge to the pragmatist because, like ‘democracy,’ it is the repository of a great deal of unpragmatic rhetoric. It is at the heart of the American ‘civil religion,’ a term well chosen to convey the moralistic fervor in which free speech is celebrated.
The Law, the Universe, and Everything