Cardozo Law News Brief: August 25, 2023

Featured Faculty: Andrea Schneider Betsy Ginsberg Edward Zelinsky Campus News: Cardozo Welcomes New Class During Orientation Week 2023 Events: The Burns Center Presents: A Conversation with Adam Liptak, Professor Jessica Roth and Professor Alexander Reiner

Cardozo Law News Brief: September 8, 2023

Featured Faculty: Jessica Roth Andrea Schneider Alexander Reinert Luis Calderon Gomez Pamela Foohey Emmanuel Arnaud Myriam Gilles Young Ran (Christine) Kim Michel Rosenfeld Edward Zelinsky Campus News: Innocence Project Client Leonard Mack Exonerated 47 Years After Wrongful Conviction Events: The Burns Center Presents: A Conversation on the Supreme Court with Adam Liptak, Professor Jessica Roth and Professor Alexander Reiner

A Conversation on the Supreme Court With Adam Liptak

https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/flyers-2023-2024/1005/thumbnail.jp

A Conversation on the Supreme Court with Adam Liptak

Join the Burns Center for a conversation on the Supreme Court with Adam Liptak, who is considered one of the most highly regarded legal affairs journalists in the country. He will be joined by two distinguished Cardozo law professors, Jessica Roth and Alexander Reinert. They will discuss current ethical issues surrounding the court, challenges to the court\u27s legitimacy and upcoming and recently decided cases on issues such as abortion rights, gun regulations, same sex marriage and more.https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2023/1027/thumbnail.jp

Foreword: Reflections on our Founding

Law Journals have been under heavy criticism for as long as we can remember. The criticisms come from all quarters, including judges, law professors, and even commentators at large. In an address at the Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference almost a decade ago, for example, Chief Justice Roberts complained about the “disconnect between the academy and the profession.” More pointedly, he continued, “[p]ick up a copy of any law review that you see, and the first article is likely to be, you know, the influence of Immanuel Kant on evidentiary approaches in 18th Century Bulgaria, or something, which I’m sure was of great interest to the academic that wrote it, but isn’t of much help to the bar.” Similarly, law professors have developed what Lawrence Friedman calls “a literature of invective” against law reviews. Adam Liptak summarized one line of criticism with a question: “[W]hy are law reviews, the primary repositories of legal scholarship, edited by law students?

Foreword: Reflections on our Founding

Law Journals have been under heavy criticism for as long as we can remember. The criticisms come from all quarters, including judges, law professors, and even commentators at large. In an address at the Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference almost a decade ago, for example, Chief Justice Roberts complained about the “disconnect between the academy and the profession.” More pointedly, he continued, “[p]ick up a copy of any law review that you see, and the first article is likely to be, you know, the influence of Immanuel Kant on evidentiary approaches in 18th Century Bulgaria, or something, which I’m sure was of great interest to the academic that wrote it, but isn’t of much help to the bar.” Similarly, law professors have developed what Lawrence Friedman calls “a literature of invective” against law reviews. Adam Liptak summarized one line of criticism with a question: “[W]hy are law reviews, the primary repositories of legal scholarship, edited by law students?

The Supreme Court In Crisis

The speakers will discuss recent decisions affecting abortion and gun rights, the public’s trust and confidence in the high court and cases the Court will decide before the summer involving LGBTQ rights, affirmative action, election law and immigration policy. Speakers: Tom Gerety, former President of Amherst and Trinity Colleges, former Executive Director of the Brennan Center for Justice Adam Liptak, New York Times Supreme Court Correspondent David Rudenstine, Sheldon H. Solow Professor of Law at Cardozo and former Deanhttps://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/event-invitations-2023/1004/thumbnail.jp

Thoughts on Commercial Speech: A Roundtable Discussion

Adam Liptak, the legal affairs writer for The New York Times, moderates a lively discussion about commercial speech between three esteemed constitutional scholars: Professor Erwin Chemerinsky of Duke University School of Law; Professor Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law School; and Professor Steve Shiffrin of Cornell Law School. These scholars debate the proper definition of defining commercial speech, how the corporate identity of a speaker and the content of the speech determines the level of First Amendment protection, whether it is possible to demarcate commercial speech from political speech, and the problems of paternalism and viewpoint discrimination in this complex and conflicted area

Thoughts on Commercial Speech: A Roundtable Discussion

Adam Liptak, the legal affairs writer for The New York Times, moderates a lively discussion about commercial speech between three esteemed constitutional scholars: Professor Erwin Chemerinsky of Duke University School of Law; Professor Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law School; and Professor Steve Shiffrin of Cornell Law School. These scholars debate the proper definition of defining commercial speech, how the corporate identity of a speaker and the content of the speech determines the level of First Amendment protection, whether it is possible to demarcate commercial speech from political speech, and the problems of paternalism and viewpoint discrimination in this complex and conflicted area

The Death Knell For the Death Penalty and the Significance of Global Realism to its Abolition from Glossip v. Gross to Brumfield v. Cain

Objectives For the last decade a host of different projects have been launched to allow persons who are concerned about their hearing status to quickly and at a low cost test their hearing ability. Most often, this is carried out without collecting complementary information that could be correlated with hearing impairment. In this two-part study we first, present the development and validation of a novel Internet-based hearing test, and second, report on the associations between this test and phonological representation, quality of life and self-reported hearing difficulties. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting An opportunity sample of participants was recruited at the Stockholm central station for the first study. All parts of the second study were conducted via the Internet, with testing and self-report forms adapted for online use. Participants The first part of the study was carried out in direct contact with the participants, and participants from the second study were recruited by means of advertisements in newspapers and on webpages. The only exclusion criterion was that participants had to be over 18 years old. Most participants were between 60 and 69 years old. There were almost an equal number of men and women (total n=316). Outcome measures 48 participants failed the Internet-based hearing screening test. The group failing the test reported more problems on the Amsterdam Inventory of Auditory Disability. In addition, they were found to have diminished phonological representational skills. However, no difference in quality of life was found. Conclusions Almost one in five participants was in need of contacting their local hearing clinic. This group had more complaints regarding tinnitus and hyperacusis, rated their own hearing as worse than those who passed, and had a poorer capability of generating accurate phonological representations. This study suggests that it is feasible to screen for hearing status online, and obtain valid data