Mark Rothstein, Boehl Professor of Law and Medicine and Director of the University of Louisville Institute for Bioethics, has been a resource for the national debate on legal, medical, and ethical issues related to individuals in the United States. He has appeared on CNN and been quoted in the Washington Post and other national news outlines. He has commented on the issue of quarantine and other ethical and legal issues that relate to treatment of individuals with Ebola. His comments on this issue were introduced by Congressman John Yarmuth at recent Congressional hearings. His recent publication in the American Journal of Public Health provides a broad perspective about the issues raised by the Ebola epidemic.
This past weekend, Brandeis was well-represented at the Kentucky Mock Trial Championship tournament by two teams. On one team, Jessica Sapp and Sana Abhari were attorney advocates and Linda Dixon and Christopher Ahlers portrayed witnesses. On the other, Daniel Reed and Aida Almasalhi were the attorney advocates and Ryan Russell and Helen Cooper portrayed the witnesses. The students put in an extraordinary amount of time and effort in preparing of the tournament, and that effort was well-rewarded. The team led by Sapp and Abhari tried excellent cases against both Northern Kentucky University and the University of Kentucky, but were narrowly eliminated prior to the semi-finals. The team led by Reed and Almasalhi swept the ballots from all judges in two of the four rounds (no other team won all judges' ballots in a single round) and defeated an excellent team from the University of Kentucky in the final round to be named the tournament champions. Additionally, Reed was one of four finalists for the top-advocate award.
The Kentucky Mock Trial Championship provides students the opportunity to prepare both sides of a fictional case. This year, the students tried a civil case based on principles of premises liability and comparative fault. The competition requires students to analyze intricate fact patterns and develop case theories that allow a jury to understand the facts and law behind the case. The teams were coached by Chris Schaefer of the law firm of Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC and Lindsey Howard of the law firm of Goldberg Simpson, LLC. Please join us in congratulating these terrific student advocates.
Requirements are as follows:
- Full and part-time J.D. and LL.M. students are eligible.
- Any original paper concerning federal taxation between 20-50 double spaced pages is welcome.
- Seminar papers and articles submitted (but not yet selected for publication) to law reviews, journals, or other competitions are eligible.
Winning authors receive $2000 (first place) or $1000 (second lace) and a trip to the FBA’s Annual Tax Law Conference in ashington, D.C. The winning entries may be published in the ax Section newsletter the Report or in The Federal Lawyer. Deadline is January 5, 2015. Entries may be submitted by email to Marcellus Howard at email@example.com.
In recent years it seems that every nomination to the U. S. Supreme Court leads to partisan controversy. This exhibit displays political memorabilia from the collection of Professor Kurt Metzmeier that documents some of the most recent controversies. Also included are some buttons from the pre-Court political careers of justices, a button urging the election of a sitting justice as president, and humorous objects gently mocking the dignity of the Supreme Court.
While appointments to the Court had always stirred interest in legal circles, it wasn’t until the nomination of “the people’s lawyer” Louis D. Brandeis to the court that the nation saw an active campaign against a justice. Still, that nomination was somewhat of a special case, as Brandeis had stirred up unusual distaste among the banking and railroad trusts. Even President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s frequent battles with the Supreme Court did not lead to organized campaigns against his nominees. This is surprising since most early justices were drawn from political life and many had served as governors, senators, and even, in the case of William Howard Taft, president. Indeed, the only political activity involving Supreme Court justices until the late 20th century was an occasional convention boomlet to draft one of justices to run for the presidency. (William O. Douglas perhaps was the last sitting justice to entertain such dreams).
The first attempt by an organized political group to set its sights on a member of the Supreme Court was the conservative John Birch Society’s billboard campaign to impeach sitting Chief Justice Earl Warren for the perceived liberalism of his court. However, it was President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of conservative scholar Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1986 that set off the first full-scale campaign against a nominee; one that would lead to the word “Borking” being entered in the dictionary as a term for the process of defeating a judicial nomination. Metzmeier’s collection has no fewer than four different buttons involving this effort.
After the Bork nomination, things would never be the same. Buttons and bumper stickers would be employed to both support and oppose controversial nominations. In addition, the ability to possibly choose members of the Supreme Court would be noted in every presidential campaign. A classic 1996 campaign button features a free-spinning arrow pointing to the names of existing justices who (the button implies) could die or resign at any time and asks “Who do you want to choose the next Justice?” The Supreme Court now plays more prominent role in popular political culture than at any time. Its secret service nickname SCOTUS is well-known and forms part of a popular legal blog. And it hard to imagine any prior justice being so lovingly re-imaged as Justice Ginsburg has been as “The Notorious RGB.”
The exhibit is in the Law Library reading room through the end of 2014.