"Judicial Activism:" Overreaching Courts or Protection Against Tyranny of the Majority?

The election season has the potential to provide a trove of video clips raising issues about the proper role of courts in America. In the clip below, Republican Presidential hopeful, Rick Santorum criticizes the US Supreme Court decision in Griswold v. Connecticut as inappropriate "judicial activism."  This clip can be a good discussion starter.

After students learn the case, what is their reaction? Is it, "Good grief, where does the Supreme Court get off creating a right of privacy!"  Or is it, "Thank goodness that the Supreme Court recognized that there is a right of privacy!" When the "people" of the great state of Connecticut (in the body of the elected representatives in the state legislature) vote to criminalize the use of contraception, is this an example of the "people" properly establishing the limits of acceptable conduct or is it the government overreaching into the very places where government should never venture? Should the Court have deferred to "the will of the people" of Connecticut or did it properly act to protect the people of Connecticut from the tyranny of its elected officials?

Does the Ninth Amendment's  reservation of rights to the people mean that only legislatures may determine the extent of those rights or is this the inherent function of the courts?

More Law/Justice Disconnect

In 1998, David Messenger of Chaplin, Connecticut bludgeoned his pregnant wife to death in front of their 5 year old child. He was subsequently found not guilty of manslaughter by reason of insanity and committed for 20 years to the custody of the State of Connecticut Psychiatric Security Review Board.  As the PSRB considers releasing Messenger into a halfway house to complete his sentence, the Hartford Courant reveals that Messenger posseses significant financial assets; including, incredibly, a portion of the $425,000 proceeds from the settlement of the wrongful death case filed against him by his wife's estate!  In the loopiest of legal loopholes:

State Probate Court Administrator Paul Knierim said there is nothing in the probate statutes that prohibits people found not guilty by reason of insanity from remaining as beneficiaries of the estates of their victims.

Is the court devoid of equitable powers to remedy this travesty?  The Courant article reports further:

And because David Messenger voluntarily gave up his parental rights to his son, after he killed his wife, the boy wasn’t eligible to challenge Messenger’s standing as the beneficiary of the estate.

Once again, how can this be?  The son is still a beneficiary of his mother's estate.  Why can't he challenge the status of other beneficiaries? If this article and the scenario that it paints is perplexing to legal professionals, how must it be perceived by the general public?

The law is not inherently equal to justice. Justice must be avidly pursued by a vigilant society.

The following video was posted on YouTube in 2008 by the family of Messenger's victim:

Civil Disobedience Exposes Law's Injustice

In honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, below are a couple of videos celebrating the acts of civil disobedience performed by the Freedom Riders in Jackson, Mississippi in 1961. These, and other acts of peaceful civil disobedience help expose and publicize the injustice of segregation law to the nation and its national government.

The law is not inherently equal to justice. Justice must be avidly pursued by a vigilant society.

Choosing a Pre-Law Major - Happy Holiday Season

This is final exam week at UConn. As the semester comes to a close I wish a happy holiday season and semester break to all readers.  Posts will return in earnest when the Spring semester begins in mid-January.

In the meantime, this clip of a family holiday dinner discussion allows us to reflect on how our students may be drawn to study the law.

Bad Lawyer Ads #3

This is final exam week at UConn so, normally, I would post something on the lighter side. I went  looking for humorous lawyer ads to post and found the video below, Unfortunately, this ad, ostensibly intended to be clever turned out to be disturbing.

How can you be a lawyer who purports to make a living advancing the rights of innocent injury victims yet embrace the stereotype of "bullying" insurance companies into unfairly paying money to your clients after a "shakedown"?  Where is our credibility, as a profession, in advocating for a fair civil justice system when we sink to pandering for business at the expense of principles? An ad like this emboldens the cause of "tort deformers," and cheapens the search for justice.

I hesitated to post the ad here for fear that I would be giving it unwarranted exposure. But toward the greater interest of education, we all need to know what is happening out there and to what forces of "mis-education" our students may be exposed.

See also: Bad Lawyer Ads #1; Bad Lawyer Ads #2

Law Music Video: "Sue Me" from Guys and Dolls

This week's installment in the "Law Music Videos" series is Sue Me from the musical "Guys and Dolls." This performance features Nathan Lane and Faith Prince.
Law music videos played before your class starts will positively contribute to learning.

Commercial Appropriation Claim: Kardashian v. Old Navy

We have seen successful commercial appropriation claims by Bette Midler and Vanna White.  Lindsey Lohan's claim deservedly crashed and burned. The latest person suiing to prevent others from trading on her fame is Kim Kardashian.  If you are like me, your first reaction is likely, "Who the heck is Kim Kardashian?"  However, I understand that she is a person well known to our undergraduate students. Yet, even the students are unable to satisfactorily answer my follow-up question, ". . . and why is she famous?"

Judge for yourself.  This is Kim Kardashian:

This is the Old Navy ad: