U.S. courts are increasingly involved in disputes involving public figures. Does media attention distract from the merits of these disputes or effect court decisions? Are high-profile cases properly decided on the merits?
Our panelists will discuss the Anna Nicole Smith v. E. Pierce Marshall matter, currently before the Ninth Circuit, as a case study.
THE PANELISTS
Hon. Ronald A. Cass, President, Cass & Associates, PC and Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law
Mr. Cass is President of Cass & Associates, PC, a legal consultancy in Great Falls, VA, and Chairman of the Center for the Rule of Law, an independent, non-profit center of international legal scholars analyzing rule of law issues. He served Presidents Reagan and Bush as Vice Chairman and Commissioner of the US International Trade Commission, and is Dean Emeritus of Boston University School of Law, where he served as Dean from 1990-2004 and Melville Madison Bigelow Professor of Law from 1995-2004.
Prof. William W Bassett, University of San Francisco
Professor Bassett, who was scholar in residence at the Monumenta Germaniae Historica in Munich, is the author of many articles and books on property, legal history and ecclesiastical law. His recently published Religious Organizations and the Law was supported by a major grant from the Lilly Foundation.
DATE AND TIME
Monday, May 21, 2007
Noon-1:30 pm
Bankers Club
555 California Street, 52nd Floor, San Francisco
Lunch will be served.
There is no charge for this event or for lunch. RSVP required to attend, as space is limited.
RSVP to sffederalist@gmail.com or 415/774-2973
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Prof. Ralph Rossum on Justice Scalia - May 8
Professor Ralph A. Rossum of Claremont-McKenna College will speak to the San Francisco Lawyers Chapter on Tuesday, May 8 at 5:45 pm on his book "Antonin Scalia's Jurisprudence, Text and Tradition." After Professor Rossum's remarks, he will be questioned by a panel of former Supreme Court clerks, including Professors John Yoo and Howard Shelanski of Boalt Hall.
The event will be at Bingham McCutchen, 3 Embarcadero Center, 27th Floor, San Francisco. Please RSVP to sffederalist@gmail.com.
The event will be at Bingham McCutchen, 3 Embarcadero Center, 27th Floor, San Francisco. Please RSVP to sffederalist@gmail.com.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Podcast and article on War and Federal Courts
Thanks to Jesse Choper and John Yoo for a great debate on War and the Federal Courts on April 5.
A podcast recording of the debate can be found at the Federalist Society's national website here.
A link to Choper and Yoo's joint article "Wartime Process: A Dialogue on Congressional Power to Remove Issues from the Federal Courts," to be published in the May 2007 issue of the California Law Review, can be found here. Free registration is required for access to this informative article.
A podcast recording of the debate can be found at the Federalist Society's national website here.
A link to Choper and Yoo's joint article "Wartime Process: A Dialogue on Congressional Power to Remove Issues from the Federal Courts," to be published in the May 2007 issue of the California Law Review, can be found here. Free registration is required for access to this informative article.
Monday, April 02, 2007
April 5 - Professors Yoo and Choper debate the Military Commissions Act
The San Francisco Chapter of the Federalist Society is hosting a debate on the Military Commissions Act on Thursday, April 5 at 5:45 pm at the Bankers' Club, 555 California Street (B of A Building), 52nd Floor, San Francisco. It is free for members and students; $10 for non-members.
This event is a must for those who wish to be better informed about the legal issues involved in the War on Terror, the role (if any) of federal courts in the detention and punishment of suspects in that war, and the legal status of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
Professors John Yoo and Jesse Choper of Boalt Hall will debate whether Congress’s enactment of the Military Commissions Act, which overruled the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, is constitutional. Professor Yoo argues that Congress was fully in its rights because Hamdan incorrectly concluded that the federal courts have the authority to hear habeas corpus claims from enemy combatants held outside the United States. Professor Choper takes the opposite view because he believes important structural and individual liberty provisions of the Constitution requires that the courts hear claims challenging the legality of mistaken detentions in war.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan can be found here. The 2-1 opinion of the D.C. Circuit in February 2007 upholding the constitutionality of the MCA can be found here.
The text of the Military Commissions Act divesting federal courts from hearing petitions for writs of habeas corpus from alien detainees provides:
"No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."
This event is a must for those who wish to be better informed about the legal issues involved in the War on Terror, the role (if any) of federal courts in the detention and punishment of suspects in that war, and the legal status of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.
Professors John Yoo and Jesse Choper of Boalt Hall will debate whether Congress’s enactment of the Military Commissions Act, which overruled the Supreme Court’s decision last summer in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, is constitutional. Professor Yoo argues that Congress was fully in its rights because Hamdan incorrectly concluded that the federal courts have the authority to hear habeas corpus claims from enemy combatants held outside the United States. Professor Choper takes the opposite view because he believes important structural and individual liberty provisions of the Constitution requires that the courts hear claims challenging the legality of mistaken detentions in war.
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hamdan can be found here. The 2-1 opinion of the D.C. Circuit in February 2007 upholding the constitutionality of the MCA can be found here.
The text of the Military Commissions Act divesting federal courts from hearing petitions for writs of habeas corpus from alien detainees provides:
"No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)