Mark A. Belnick’s talk is entitled “General Counsel Under Fire”. He will speak about being criminally prosecuted for alleged misconduct as general counsel of Tyco — and being acquitted after a jury trial. He will also speak about his spiritual journey to the Catholic Church. Date: April 19, 2007; Time: 7:30am; Place: University Club of Chicago, Cathedral Hall, 9th floor, 76 E. Monroe St., Chicago IL 60603; Cost: $40.00. Previous speakers were Robert Novak and Sen. Sam Brownback, and were very successful events. Register here.
Law
First Amendment Symposium
This weekend past, a First Amendment Symposium was held at Loyola Law School in honor of esteemed alumnus Steven Shiffrin. It was attended by eminent constitutional law scholars, including Erwin Chemerinsky, Kurt Lash, and Eugene Volokh. The topic was commercial speech, particularly in the context of Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Ca. 4th 939 (2002). I’ve broken down just a hint of the arguments that each of the distinguished speakers made.
The Libby Trial
Despite wishful thinking by some conservative pundits, the odds that Libby will be convicted, as reflected by the Intrade betting market, have been creeping up and are now around 70%. The bigger question at this point is whether President Bush will have the balls to pardon him.
(This blog is an Intrade affiliate.)
Stupid Journalist Tricks and Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” Law
Strange Women Lying in Ponds eviscerates a tendentious Miami Herald article about Florida’s new self-defense law.
Miami Police Chief John Timoney is quoted in the article:
What you’re going to see is drug dealers using this [i.e., the new law] to settle scores, and the Legislature has basically given them permission
Timoney should know better. Perhaps he does. This quote reflects poorly on him in any case. The Herald plays along, because the reporters and their editors are either too lazy to do a little research or because they like what Timoney is saying or both. The fact is that no matter the changes in the law, anybody who shoots another person is going to receive full investigative scrutiny and be prosecuted if the shooting was not in self-defense. That’s as it should be. (To its credit the article provides a quote from the NRA’s Marion Hammer, who reasonably points out that criminals have claimed self-defense since long before the new law was enacted. However, Hammer’s one quote is offset by numerous quotes from opponents of the law, most of whom ignore the law’s substance.)
In particular, the article’s emphasis of State’s Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle’s comment that the new law complicates prosecutions misses the point, and the authors mislead by not providing more background on the law. The very reason the law exists is that prosecutors like Fernandez Rundle had gained a reputation for being too willing to prosecute otherwise-law-abiding individuals who defended themselves against violent attacks. The new law exists in part to clarify the legislature’s intent that good-faith attempts at self-defense not be punished. The law would not have been proposed, then easily passed and enacted, if there were no problem with prosecutors who abused their discretion.
UPDATE: A follow up by SWLIP.
(Related posts here and here.)
John Yoo Speaks on War Powers
Bruce Chang posts a transcript of a recent talk by John Yoo. It should be of interest to anyone concerned about the legalities of the current war.