-
Contributors
Blogroll
- Above The Law
- Althouse
- Balkinazation
- Becker-Posner Blog
- BLT: The Blog of Legal Times
- Concurring Opinions
- Dorf on Law
- How Appealing
- Law.Com
- Most Strongly Supported
- Prawfsblawg
- Prison Law Blog
- SCOTUS Blog
- Sentencing Law and Policy
- Text & History
- The Confrontation Blog
- The Volokh Conspiracy
- Wait A Second!
- Wall Street Journal Law Blog
Categories
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
The Cockle BurDisclaimer
Any commentary or opinions about cases, legal theory, legal strategy, court procedure, and all other content are the express opinion of their writer and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Cockle Law Brief Printing Co (“Cockle Law”), Cockle Bur, Inc. (“Cockle Bur”) its employees, owners, or users of this site. These commentary and opinions should be relied upon at your own risk. These commentary and opinions are not legal advice.
All information made available at www.Cocklebur.com is for informational purposes only. This website, and all content contained herein, is not meant to provide legal advice or answer specific legal question. It is not a substitute for legal advice. You should neither act, nor refrain from acting, based on information contained in this site; nor should you consider any blogs or other content posted on www.Cocklebur.com to be a substitute for proper legal research conducted by a licensed attorney. Visitors to this site should consult a licensed attorney before relying on any information found on this site.
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Cockle Law informs you that any U.S. federal tax advice or information contained in this site (including any blog post or on any site linked to or from www.Cocklebur.com) is not intended or written to be used, and can not be used, for the purpose of (I) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (II) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Monthly Archives: November 2010
A Point of Pedagogy
So the last installment of my three-part series—The Global Gender Gap (#3 of 3)—is going to have to wait. I’m a little crunched this week, and there’s something else I want to write about. Today I have a yen to write about teaching and technology. Now, if you ask any member of my family regarding [...]
Posted in Uncategorized ( Leave a comment)
Merits Briefs
Tagged Boeing v. United States, Kentucky v. King, Pepper v. United States, Petitioner's Brief, Stern v. Marshal, Sykes v. United States
On Friday, the following merits briefs were filed in the U.S. Supreme Court. The briefs can be viewed at this link.
The Petitioner's Brief was filed in Stern v. Marshall, No. 10-179; Boeing v. United States, No. 09-1302; Sykes v. United States, No. 09-11311; and Kentucky v. King, No. 09-1271. A Reply Brief was filed in Pepper v. United States, No. 09-6822.
Posted in Briefs ( Leave a comment)
ABA Journal Has The Scoop On Justice Alito Being Chased By Blogger
Tagged ABA Journal.com, Justice Alito, Lee Fang
The ABA Journal.com summarizes this story about Lee Fang--a blogger from Think Progress--chasing Justice Alito and yelling questions about whether it is ethical for the Justice to be attending a Republican fund-raiser dinner. Fang also videotaped one of Justice Alito's security guards threatening to arrest Fang.
Posted in Supreme Court ( 3 Comments)
Petition Raises an Ex Post Facto Challenge to the Sentencing Guidelines
For the past three years there has been a growing circuit split on whether a defendant’s sentence may be increased by using a Federal Sentencing Guidelines manual that was amended after the offense took place and whether such an increase would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Chicago-based attorney Marc Martin filed a petition on Tuesday in United States v. Custable, asking the Court to remedy the circuit split that has become “more pronounced.”
In April of 2005, Frank Custable was indicted on a series of wire and mail fraud offenses, and obstruction of justice.
Posted in Briefs, Supreme Court ( 1 Comment)
Divorce Italian Style
Courts often don’t get sex. We know that. But I had thought that this was a peculiarly American matter. Not so, apparently. British newspapers are reporting that Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation, its highest court for nonconstitutional issues, has civilly blessed an ecclesiastical court’s annulment of a marriage. That, by itself, will strike an American [...]
Posted in Uncategorized ( 1 Comment)
Administrative Law’s Empire I
Tagged administrative, Breyer, Chevron, pragmatism, Scalia
Many have weighed in on Justice Breyer’s recent book, Making Our Democracy Work: A Judge’s View. They understandably focus on the sexy topics—constitutional interpretation, Brown v. Board of Education, and judicial review generally; the topics most relevant to today’s political battles—statutory interpretation and the culture wars; and Breyer’s own big, nagging question—why does the public [...]
Posted in Book Reviews, Supreme Court ( 1 Comment)
The Global Gender Gap (#2 of 3)–From Horse Race to Health Care
In my last post, I highlighted the “horse race” aspect of the World Economic Forum’s 2010 Global Gender Gap Report, which shows the Nordic countries ahead of the curve in gender equality and the United States placing in the top 20 (#19) for the first time. The ratings are based on each country’s “Gender Gap [...]
Posted in Uncategorized ( 2 Comments)
How the Iowa vote may improve the long-term chances for same-sex marriage
Tagged 763 N.W.2d 862, Iowa, same-sex marriage, Varnum v. Brien
Three justices of the Iowa Supreme Court were defeated for election to new terms on Tuesday. It is as clear as could be that they lost because they had joined in Varnum v. Brien, 763 N.W.2d 862 (Iowa 2009), the court’s unanimous decision holding that the state constitution gives same-sex couples a right to marry. Especially given that Iowa is a relatively moderate state – it has a Democratic Governor but just elected a Republican one; it has two long-standing Senators, one Republican and one a liberal Democrat; and Obama thumped McCain there in 2008 – one might well expect that high court judges in other states will take note and be more hesitant than they might have been to follow in the same path as Varnum.
Posted in Uncategorized ( 5 Comments)

Chief Justice Roberts’ Facebook Page