Professor Christopher Borgen was interviewed yesterday by the BBC on the situation in the Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and international law. The audio of the interview is here and the relevant segment begins at about the 19.15 minute mark.
Professor Nina Crimm and Professor Laurence H. Winer (Arizona State University, Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law) have written a post on their recently published book, God, Schools, and Government Funding: First Amendment Conundrums (Ashgate, 2015). The post was noted on SCOTUSblog’s Wednesday round-up.
Professor Ray Warner’s article “Rejoice in New York’s Revised UCC, But Beware of Traps” was published in the February 18th issue of Law360.
Professor Mark Movsesian was quoted in the Deseret News on the subject of the paucity of
religious objections to vaccination and the inapplicability of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores to the current controversy concerning the measles outbreak.
Professor Rosemary Salomone has written a short essay titled, “Why English is Not
Enough,” which appears in University World News. A bit:
Defining moments, like the attacks in Paris, should remind us that language is key to gaining an insider’s view and a sense of the ‘big picture’, which by the way also allows us to critically examine ourselves. Print and broadcast media, as well as the global blogosphere, still speak in many voices and worldviews and they are powerful shapers of ideas and opinions.
Though multilingualism is clearly important in the global economy, we should not underestimate the force of language and intercultural awareness in promoting global understanding and security.
Today it’s French. Tomorrow it could be Spanish, Chinese, Farsi or any other language depending on the vagaries of world events. With terrorism unwittingly binding the free world together, linguistic skills and the cultural doors they open are essential to both digging deep into differences, especially among our enemies, while finding common ground for mutual respect and joint action among present and potential allies.
The success of those efforts depends on many variables. Yet one thing is clear. If policy-makers and educators continue to give mere lip service to the foreign language deficit while English rapidly sweeps the globe, they disserve the interests of their own countries.
Professor Sovern authored an op-ed appearing on the New York Times DealBook web pages, When Consumers Give Up Their Right to Trial in Financial Disputes, about the St. John’s arbitration study, co-authored by Professors Elayne E. Greenberg and Paul F. Kirgis, as well as St. John’s Director of Institutional Assessment Yuxiang Liu. The essay concludes:
[O]ur survey suggests that consumers are surrendering fundamental rights without knowing it because they cannot comprehend the contracts that strip them of those rights and do not realize that courts will uphold the contracts. Congress has given the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau the power to block financial companies from taking those rights away, and the agency is studying the issue. The agency would do well to decide that companies can’t take advantage of these bewildering contracts.
Professor Warner’s article on the recent oral arguments in a pending Supreme Court bankruptcy case, “A ‘Wellness’ Check For Bankruptcy — Confusion Reigns,” appeared in the January 30th edition of Law 360.
In an American Banker op-ed, Consumers Fare Better with Arbitration, Alan Kaplinsky, Mark Levin, and Daniel McKenna, lawyers from Ballard Spahr, a leading firm representing banks and others in the consumer financial services industry, commented on the St. John’s Arbitration Study, and responded to an earlier American Banker op-ed authored by Professor Jeff Sovern. Sovern rebutted in another American Banker op-ed, Arbitration Tricks Consumers into Giving Up Their Rights. In addition, Maryland law professor Peter Holland offered his own views on the study in a blog post.
Professor Michael Perino had a column in Friday, December 12th’s New York Times titled, “The Gift of Inside Information,” which discusses and criticizes a recent decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A bit:
Insider trading is perhaps our most symbolic white-collar crime. Our ban on the practice expresses our deep social commitment to equality of opportunity; it embodies that peculiarly American revulsion for any special privileges that might be thought to accrue to the wealthy or to the political and social elite. As Preet Bharara, the United States attorney who spearheaded the most recent spate of prosecutions, explained, insider trading tells everybody “that everything is rigged and only people who have a billion dollars and have access to and are best friends with people who are on the boards of directors of major companies … can make a true buck.”
Allowing executives to give away information to whomever they choose so long as they get nothing in return simply makes no sense.
The American Banker ran Professor Jeff Sovern’s op-ed, Arbitration Clauses Trap Consumers with Fine Print, on the St. John’s Arbitration Study. Professor Sovern collaborated on the study with Professors Elayne Greenberg and Paul Kirgis, and the director of St. John’s Institutional Assessment, Yuxiang Liu. The full study can be found here.