First, we would like to welcome all our incoming 1L students. We are always very excited to see new members of the UDM family. We would also like to welcome back all returning students. We hope that you are all feeling refreshed after the summer break!
We have just set out our library tour schedules, which is posted at the library entrance. All are welcome to attend the library tours--sign-up is not necessary in order to attend. The tours provide a nice opportunity to familiarize yourself with the law library, or can provide a refresher of the library facility. Additional information about the library can be found in the Library Guide, which 1L students should have received as part of the first-year orientation package. Please see a member of the reference staff if you did not receive a copy or if you would like an updated copy. Of course, you should never hesitate to talk to any member of the library staff--we are eager to help!
Monday, March 8, 2010
The New York Times has an article today from Adam Liptak discussing a recent study that suggests that oral dissents from the bench have become more common since the inception of the Roberts court. As compared to the preceding Rehnquist and Burger courts, the study finds that the practice of reading a dissent from the bench has increased from an average of 3 per term to 3.75 per term. The study links the rise in oral dissents to increasing polarization on the court, claiming that such dissents could signal that bargaining and accommodation among members has broken down. Given the ideological pedigree of the members, as well as the types of cases heard by this court, is it any surprise that things aren't all peaches and cream?
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Glenn Greenwald has a looooong post over at Salon.com today discussing recent disclosures that the U.S. intelligence community has been targeting American citizens for assassination. In the ongoing War on Terror (there's a new, less menacing term for our crusade, but I don't remember what it is) the Executive has commandeered the prerogative to designate certain American citizens as terrorists, making them fair game in the assassination campaign. Obviously there are serious questions about the legality of this program, as it essentially deprives American citizens of scads of Constitutionally-guaranteed protections. Equally troubling is the absence of oversight. According to government officials, before an American citizen can be deemed fair game for assassination, special permission must be granted. Swell, right? Not exactly. That special permission comes from within the Executive branch of government, either from the president or from someone working for the president. Keep in mind that the entire program was designed and has been executed by the Executive. So, to recap, before engaging in the assassination of American citizens (deemed terrorists, as defined by the Executive), the Executive must get special permission from the Executive. Sounds like a flawless system.