A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Prepare Your Final Status Update with MyWebWill

I’ve written about the legal problems associated with online social media accounts after a subscriber’s death. This is a way cool start-up idea that, at first blush, seems to solve then like an “advance medical directive” does for the dying

Posted via web from glenn’s posterous

There Is a Law

A great headline out of Australia. It’s the Law: Men Do Fewer Chores [Sydney Morning Herald]. But the story is actually that because the Aussie Federal Sex Discrimination regulations offer “an inadequate level of protection for men against discrimination on the basis of family responsibilities it provides a strong disincentive for men to take on a greater care-taking role within the family unit.” Not so different from the US, where despite FMLA, men are still actively prevented from taking paternity leave or using flex-time work arrangements.


Lawyer Who Paid Rent of Edwards’ Mistress ‘Shocked’ to Learn of Affair [ABA Journal-Law News Now]. Yeah, sure. Although I have no reason to doubt Fred Baron, this sounds suspiciously like Captain Renault (Claude Raines) in Casablanca. (”I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! “) Indeed, I am truly shocked to learn that U.S. presidential candidates may have sexual dalliances and lie about them. And then mislead his own lawyer. It could never happen in a great country like America. Must be all the headiness of national politics distorting the judgment of a little ol’ country boy lawyer….NOT.

Gay Marriage Without Dissent

Today the U.S. Supreme Court — without any dissent, even from the most conservative justices — refused to accept review of the Massachusetts decision requiring state officials there to recognize same-sex marriage. Although Supreme Court decisions in such certiorari proceedings are not precedential, it seems to me that this pretty much puts a nail into the coffin about whether the Court thinks the equal protection argument advanced in favor of gay marriage is invalid.

Just as the Court reached out in 2000 to decide Bush v. Gore, because it wanted to end the Florida recount, it could have done so with this case even though Massachusetts decided on state consitutional grounds. As the Court recognized in 2000:

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.

That same logic would obviously work to federalize same-sex marriage as a constitutional issue. But the Supremes said no, meaning there are still (believe it or not) some political questions in which the Court wants to avoid meddling. Glory be, a real conservative decision from a Supreme Court that is in actuality as activist as they come.