Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Learning to Link: The Military Commission Decision Disqualifying the Legal Adviser, Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann
|
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Learning to Link: The Military Commission Decision Disqualifying the Legal Adviser, Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann
Marty Lederman
On Saturday, the New York Times reported a major development in the military commission proceeding against Salim Hamdan, something it properly called "a new blow to the Bush administration’s troubled military commission system": On Friday, the Commission disqualified from the case Brig. Gen. Thomas W. Hartmann of the Air Force Reserve, a senior Pentagon official of the Office of Military Commissions, which runs the war crimes system, because General Hartmann had indicated that political considerations should be brought to bear on prosecution decisions, and because Hartmann had also pressed for the introduction of evidence that had been obtained by use of waterboarding and other forms of torture and cruel treatment. As the Times reported:
Comments:
Nah, if the MSM were to start providing links to source material, readers wouldn't have to take their assertions on faith anymore, and slipping in the (more than) occasional questionably sourced assertion would become difficult. And what's the point of BEING the MSM, if you can't mislead the masses when you think it's necessary?
Is it shocking to anyone else that the court felt it necessary to repeatedly emphasize that proponents of the disqualification were not to be retaliated against? The judge must think Haynes is scum...
The fact that the NYT neglected to link to the actual order in favor of simply parroting the party line that the order is somehow "a major new challenge to the Bush administration’s legal approach to the war on terrorism," simply reveals the reporting to be the usual NYT partisan hit job.
Your answer as to why a press eager to attack the military commission process neglects to link to the actual opinion can be found in the opinion itself. Judge Allred's opinion found no undue command influence on the current court and prosecution of the Hamdan case and denied all the substantive motions to dimiss the charges and disqualify the participants in the trial. No surprise there because Col. Davis' testimony never provided any evidence of undue command influence on the Hamdan trial. It was also interesting to observe the Court tweak Col. Davis by observing that it was General Hartman's job to motivate (read light a fire under the asses of) his subordinates to bring prosecutions. However, Captain Allred, who has in past opinions proven himself to be an extremely cautious judge, ordered General Hartman (who is not trying the Hamdan case) to be removed because he feared an appearance of undue command influence. (Translation: Allred did not want to deal with the copy cat motions from the following defendants seeking to further delaying the process). Can anyone who is able to read the actual opinion seriously consider it a ""a major new challenge to the Bush administration’s legal approach to the war on terrorism?" Hardly. There is your reason for the NYT not linking to or adequately describing the opinion. The opinion does not comport with the NYT's description of the opinion.
Can anyone who is able to read the actual opinion seriously consider it a ""a major new challenge to the Bush administration’s legal approach to the war on terrorism?"
No, because he is only banned from the *first* trial. In the judge's words, this brouhaha is all due to public outcry, so I interpret this both as a PR move and an acknowledgement that the public needs to have confidence in these trials. Hartmann and Haynes have caused questions to arise about the latter.
Lisa's bro continues to perform his res gestae-like regurgitation role defending whatever the position of the Bush Administration may be on whatever.
By the way, I just watched Bill Moyers' interview of Philippe Sands on his new book "Torture Team" that Marty has referred to on earlier posts. Sands stressed the need to get the facts, all of the facts. He points out that the various documents already released are available worldwide via the Internet such that leaders of other nations might decide to emulate George W on the subject of torture.
eric said...
BD: Can anyone who is able to read the actual opinion seriously consider it a ""a major new challenge to the Bush administration’s legal approach to the war on terrorism?" No, because he is only banned from the *first* trial. In the judge's words, this brouhaha is all due to public outcry, so I interpret this both as a PR move and an acknowledgement that the public needs to have confidence in these trials. Hartmann and Haynes have caused questions to arise about the latter. We have a BINGO! You have correctly identified the defense lawyers' intent in filing this motion and the NYT's intent on misreporting the results of the motion - to undermine public confidence in the proceedings. As was the case with the Padilla trial, the defenses offered for the al Qaeda being tried by military commission are far more about public relations than offering a substantive defense to the charges against them.
Bart,
The New York Times article stated that under the MCA evidence obtained from torture was inadmissable but coerced evidence was okay. Is waterboarding considered torture for the purposes of the Act? What about loud music, 24 hour lighting, stress positions, etc? Is there a bright line? What is meant by "coerced" for the purposes of the Act? I'm asking in a noncombative tenor, because I read on some earlier thread that you were an acknowledged expert on the MCA...
As was the case with the Padilla trial, the defenses offered for the al Qaeda being tried by military commission are far more about public relations than offering a substantive defense to the charges against them.
Much like the John Walker Lindh case.
The Court begins by accepting the testimony of Colonel Davis on all issues, finding it supported by the testimony of others, including the prosecutor. This is sufficient to establish a prima facie case for recusal, and the government is required to come forward with sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the interference was not coercive. The Court finds that the decision to prosecute Hamdan was made prior to the interference, and so could not have been influenced by the wrongful actions of General Hartmann. The ruling is as follows:
The Commission is not persuaded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the Legal Advisor to the Convening Authority retains the reqired independence from the prosecution function to provide fair and objective legal advice to the Convening Authority. These are substantial doubts about that ability based on the length and intensity of the Legal Advisor’s involvement with the Prosecution in general, as well as the impact his actions have had on the prosecutors in this case. With this factual background, is there any doubt that any other decision to prosecute in which General Hartmann played a part will not be thrown out? I bet reasonable lawyers, acting with some sense of professionalism, would advise their clients that they had better figure out a way to do this over without the appearance of coercion. Sounds like a real roadblock to me, or at least it would be if we had any reasonable lawyers left in the DOD
michael said...
Bart, The New York Times article stated that under the MCA evidence obtained from torture was inadmissable but coerced evidence was okay. Is waterboarding considered torture for the purposes of the Act? What about loud music, 24 hour lighting, stress positions, etc? Is there a bright line? What is meant by "coerced" for the purposes of the Act? I'm asking in a noncombative tenor, because I read on some earlier thread that you were an acknowledged expert on the MCA... :::chuckle::: I do not recall advertising myself as an "expert" in the MCA. It is my understanding that the MCA permits the court to make a case by case determination of the reliability and admissibility of evidence obtained through coercion for intelligence gathering purposes. Consequently, Judge Allred will have to make those determinations. In past posts here, I have argued that statements gained through coercive interrogation may be useful for gathering actionable intelligence which can be confirmed, but should not be used as "confessions" for criminal liability at war crimes trials. I think the prosecution has the same point of view even though Congress gave them more latitude. The media has reported that the FBI reinterviewed each of the defendants and that the prosecution is going to rely on statements made during the FBI interviews. So hopefully this issue does not even arise.
Amen to Marty's point about linking. I'm frequently annoyed by major papers failing to link to items that are important to the story -- while linking to all manner of extraneous stuff (names of states, companies, or whatever featured in the story). The latter practice seems designed to increase search engine visibility, with no added value whatsoever for the reade -- the links generally don't lead to anything interesting.
(This has been my cranky Andy Rooney moment for the month, I hope.)
Maybe MiamiHerald's posting the actual ruling's link demonstrates a continued new realism in the aftermath of its embarrassing experience with taxpayer sourced payola in news 'gathering', as reported in this early September 2006 article from NYT.
Thank you Bart.
Someone on an earlier thread acknowledged you as expert on MCA related matters, but then used that as a preamble to a somewhat more critical view of your expertise in other areas. What I am trying to learn is whether the MCA relaxes evidentiary standards, and in what ways? I guess I am just too lazy this morning to read it myself. I always thought that the trials at Gitmo would fail on these points, especially since death penalties are being sought.
michael said...
You can find the MCA text here. The short answer to your question is that the evidentiary standards for a military commission are relaxed when compared to a federal civilian or military UCMJ criminal trial. There are 61 references to evidence in the MCA, so I would recommend that you read the document for more specific questions.
Michael:
Someone on an earlier thread acknowledged you as expert on MCA related matters, but then used that as a preamble to a somewhat more critical view of your expertise in other areas. Anyone here that has acknowledged "Bart"'s expertise in any area was either joking, sarcastic, or referring to extensive experience with DWI ... "discussing while intoxicated". And this truly is the extend of "Bart"'s expertise in this area. "Bart"'s legal errors here are legion (I can provide cites if you'd like), and he refuses to provide any 'authority' for his claims in many instances other than simply his own say-so. When he does, they're easily picked apart. What I am trying to learn is whether the MCA relaxes evidentiary standards, and in what ways? I guess I am just too lazy this morning to read it myself. I put together a partial summary of a number of the differences between Article III criminal prosecutions and the travesty we call "military commissions" here. As to Col. Davis's allegations, I did this post. The fact of Hartman's picking of the lawyers goes right to the gravamen of my first post there, and Hartman's (And Hayne's) jiggering the process is in the Scott Horton excerpt in the second. I always thought that the trials at Gitmo would fail on these points, especially since death penalties are being sought. I really wonder whether the U.S. Supreme Court is going to accept "trials" where evidence from torture is accepted. Basicaly the whole civilised world condemns such a thing (not to mention treaties and even the U.S. Constitution). Why we should allow it here is simply beyond me. As "Bart" should know, even subsequent interrogation is tainted when there has been a forced confession earlier, so the effort to "sanitise" the evidence by redoing the interrogations is just an effort by the Dubya maladministration to rescue hopelessly (and needlessly) compromised prosecutions. I'd note that, TTBOMK, even the FBI interrogations weren't done with lawyers for the detainees (another fatal flaw if so). Cheers,
michael:
A word to the wise about arne. Read all his "legal authority" carefully. It usually is not what he claims it to be. arne is a perpetual 1L from Berkeley who actually works as an engineer. If you decide to get into a discussion with him, get ready for a spam attack where he will post a separate response to every individual sentence in your post. arne comes from the quanity over quality school of blogging, Just watch the response to this post for an example. Finally, arne has some fixation with me. I generally just ignore him. If you decide to correspond with him, I would suggest that you do not discuss me with him. It just sets him off again.
Michael:
["Bart"]: A word to the wise about arne. Read all his "legal authority" carefully. It usually is not what he claims it to be. arne is a perpetual 1L from Berkeley who actually works as an engineer. Here's some "legal authority" for you to peruse: "["Bart]: There are two Brown decisions - (Brown I) Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) and (Brown II) Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U.S. 294 (1955). The first held that de jure segregation violated the EPC and the second held that courts may legislate forced bussing of students to achieve desegregation." And this he emitted after I'd explained the landscape of the desergregation cases to the eedjit "Bart" above that in that very thread. Read the whole thread for laughs. I lay it out for him, and he still gets it wrong. He has never admitted that he was full'o'sh*te there, however. He also cites the Pentagon Papers case as a "majority" holding that the N.Y. Times could have been prosecuted post-publication. This is wrong on two counts: There was no such holding, and there wasn't even a suggestion of such a sentiment in the obiter dicta of a "majority". He cut'n'pasted something off the web that cited a case wrongly in another instance; I had to correct him on that (in his favour here, he actually did admit this mistake). And he's claimed, contrary to law (and even contrary to the express language of the FRCP) that summary judgement is inappropriate before discovery has been completed. IOW, he's just regularly full'o'it. If I were a client of his, I'd watch his every move like a hawk. He's right that I'm not an attorney. But that hardly speaks well for him that I'm the one that corrects him. He's the one that has a professional responsibility to actually know the law (and not to lie; see, e.g., MRPC RUle 8.4(c)). I'd note that he has not managed to find a single instance where I have egregiously and obviously miscited law or cases such as in the instances I've pointed out above. In fact, I don't think he's been able to show me wrong on the law ever (although I think he thinks he has). You can figure it out.... Cheers,
Michael:
["Bart"]: If you decide to get into a discussion with him, get ready for a spam attack where he will post a separate response to every individual sentence in your post. Others don't have this 'problem'. "Bart"'s problem in this regard is caused by the fact that he gets, on average, one thing wrong per sentence. Slight exaggeration (as is his claim), but not much. I've told him that if he wants to reduce the number of corrections and rebuttals I write, he should limit himself to one egregious error or outrageous statement per post of his.... Cheers,
Thanks Arne.
I went up to your site last week and today also following your links and I must say, on these issues of torture and detainee treatment you have one of the best websites out there (at least that I've found) Reading your blog, I note you do not care much for the current administration. Neither do I. I definitely have not gotten over Bush v Gore. I too recall those days of litigation, the Republican Riot, the unbelievable SCOTUS stay, and ultimate defeat with a great deal of bitterness that time has not in the least dulled. And then the incredible attack on our legal system in the last 7 years...and the degradation of our former reputation..and the brutalization of our culture... The repair work will take at least two full democratic administrations...I hope Obama is up to it. Meanwhile, congratulations again on your neat website. I have bookmarked it and added it to my "Legal Blogs" folder.
Bart,
Thanks for the link and I read through the first 12 pages of the Act before hitting the section on evidence I was looking for. What worries me are the two provisos that allow the presiding judge too much (I think) latitude in determining admissibility of evidence obtained both before and after the DTA, providing there is probative value or that the vague boilerplate "interests of justice" be served by its introduction. Now granted unlawful enemy combatants are not US citizens, but it seems that there are a very long stream of cases in the US courts that established that the goal of denying such coerced evidence was out of concern for the integrity of the legal process itself. Such concerns would of course be equally relevant to mirror- or alternate legal pathways such as the UCMJ or the military commissions. What is being set up is a kind of "second class" administration of justice with important safeguards missing or waivable. This can't be acceptable, especially since this system is being granted the power to dole out death penalties. Our country's long-standing solicitude for the rights and protection of the individual (not "citizen") qua individual, reaches its zenith when the State has the life of the individual in its power. I do not think that the MCA's protections of individuals reach that level and so in this at least the Act is defective.
Arne --
"As to Col. Davis's allegations, I did this post. The fact of Hartman's picking of the lawyers goes right to the gravamen of my first post there, and Hartman's (And Hayne's) jiggering the process is in the Scott Horton excerpt in the second." Arne -- This is the second time I've read your blog on this. The first time I was moved to the thought of re-watching "Judgment at Nuremburg". This second time: I'm going to watch it again. It would be difficult to find anything more sobering, and inspiring, than the comments made by Dodd's father, and the other US triers at Nuremburg. That's all we want more of.
HD kaliteli porno izle ve boşal.
Bayan porno izleme sitesi. Bedava ve ücretsiz porno izle size gelsin. Liseli kızların Bedava Porno ve Türbanlı ateşli hatunların sikiş filmlerini izle. Siyah karanlık odada porno yapan evli çift. harika Duvar Kağıtları bunlar tamamen ithal duvar kağıdı olanlar var 2013 Beyaz Eşya modeller Sizlere Güvenlik Sistemleri ayarliyoruz Arayin Hırdavat bulun Samsung Nokia İphone Cep telefonu alin. Super Led Tv keyfi
Adult dünyasının en güzel pornolarını bir araya toplayan ve sürekli güncellenen
Post a Comment
porno izleme sitelerinin kalitesi hep tartışılır. Fakat bu porno izleme sitesi gerçekten kaliteli türk pornolarını yayınlıyor. Bunların yanında porno keyfini hd formatında sunan bu türk porno sitesi içeriğinde birbirinden güzel türkçe pornolar sunuyur. türkçe porno Var olan türkçe pornoların aksine kaliteli ve güzel türk pornoları ve kaliteli porno videoları yayınlayan gerçek türk porno sitesi sizlere rokettube farkıyla geliyor.
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |