Marjorie Shultz Notes Limitations of the LSAT

-The New York Times, March 11, 2009 by Jonathan D. Glater
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/education/11lsat.html?pagewanted=print

“Proposition 209 and the reduced numbers of minority admits prompted me to think hard about what constitutes merit for purposes of law school admission, and to decide LSAT was much too narrow, as well as having big adverse impact,” Professor Shultz said.

-KCBS 740AM, March 11, 2009 Hosts Patti Reising and Jeff Bell
http://www.kcbs.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=3564877

“The LSAT was designed to predict who would be good as a student in law school and it actually does quite a good job of that. It’s not that it’s not useful; it’s that it’s narrow because a lawyer needs many more talents than simply logic and reasoning which is the focus of the LSAT. And our test development is trying to gauge other kinds of skills like problem solving and practical judgment and stress management and all the range of things that practicing lawyers need to have.”

Holly Doremus and Richard Frank Testify on Salmon Peril

The Sacramento Bee, March 11, 2009 by Matt Weiser
http://www.sacbee.com/378/v-print/story/1688882.html

“There is, indeed, a salmon crisis in California,” said Holly Doremus, a UC Davis expert on state environmental laws. “We think it’s important to note that this is not new. It’s as if we’ve waited until we’ve had a heart attack to seek medical attention rather than take preventive action.”

“The bottom line is that California wildlife laws are both robust and legally adequate,” said Frank…. “The single largest problem with respect to fisheries is a lack of adequate fiscal and personnel resources at the Department of Fish and Game.”

Howard Shelanski Calls New UCDC Law Program “Indispensable”

The BLT: The Blog of LegalTimes, March 9, 2009 by Eric Barendsen
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/03/cali-law-interns-find-career-options-in-dc.html

“They get the opportunity to see their law degree as something that would help them be involved with policymaking, not simply litigation, not simply advocacy,” says professor and founder of the program Howard Shelanski of U.C. Berkeley School of Law.

Robert MacCoun Doubts Feds Will Legalize Marijuana

The Wall Street Journal, March 9, 2009 by Stu Woo and Justin Scheck
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123656023550966719.html#printMode

“No one should assume that just because the Obama administration is tolerant of medical marijuana, that they’ll be as tolerant of recreational marijuana,” said Mr. MacCoun, the Berkeley professor.

Deirdre Mulligan Discusses Breach Notification Law at Seminar with Sen. Simitian

-Wired Threat Level Blog, March 6, 2009 by Kim Zetter
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/ca-looks-to-exp.html

“If you actually got it passed,” she said, “it would be a very big deal.”

-CNET News, March 6, 2009 by Elinor Mills
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10190978-83.html

Of consumers who have been notified that their data may have been exposed during a data breach, 20 percent claim they ended their relationship with the company breached but the actual churn rate is less than 7 percent, said Deirdre Mulligan.

-Wired Threat Level Blog, March 9, 2009 by Kim Zetter
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/experts-debate.html

According to Deirdre Mulligan, a professor of information technology law and policy … a Ponemon study found that about 20 percent of respondents claimed to have terminated their relationship with a company after discovering that the company experienced a breach.

Aaron Perzanowski Says Copyright Act Protects Unauthorized iPhone Developers

The Wall Street Journal, March 6, 2009 by Yukari Iwatani Kane
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123629876097346481.html#printMode

Aaron Perzanowski, a professor specializing in digital copyright law at the University of California Berkeley School of Law, believes developers have “a pretty good” defense under the DMCA if Apple claims what they’re doing is illegal, though it’s largely uncharted legal territory.

Stephen Barnett Analyzes Oral Arguments in Prop 8 Case

-McClatchy Newspapers, March 5, 2009 by Susan Ferriss
http://www.ecollegetimes.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticlePrinterFriendly&uStory_id=9dff49fc-d8eb-49f5-9614-c3e79fb2dbd8

Barnett said California’s seven Supreme Court justices “all recognize that this is new territory.”
Justices seemed to be “inviting” attorneys to help them define what constitutes a fundamental or inalienable right—and how the right of same-sex couples to marry fits into that definition if civil unions afford some of the same rights that heterosexual couples enjoy, he said.

-The Sacramento Bee, March 6, 2009 by Susan Ferriss
http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/1676806.html

“I think the opponents of Proposition 8 faced heavy going,” said Stephen Barnett, Boalt Hall law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. He said Proposition 8 supporters’ argument that the “people have the power” at the ballot box seemed to hold sway with a number of justices, judging from their questions and comments.

Joan Hollinger Believes Prop 8 Won’t Nullify Existing Gay Marriages

The Daily Californian, March 5, 2009 by Keena Batti and Zack A. Williams
http://www.dailycal.org/article/104658/california_supreme_court_to_begin_hearing_prop._8_

Joan Hollinger … said there is no constitutional basis for reversing existing legal relationships. “It would be extremely unusual, in fact unprecedented, to have people essentially divorced by across-the-board judicial decree,” Hollinger said.

Stephen Barnett Comments on Position of Chief Justice in Prop 8 Case

San Francisco Chronicle, March 4, 2009 by Bob Egelko
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/04/MN6I16807P.DTL&type=printable

“He’s typically in the middle,” said Stephen Barnett, a UC Berkeley law professor. He cautioned, though, that this case, which involves “such strong moral persuasions,” might not follow the usual pattern.

Jesse Choper and Robert Cole Disagree on President’s Wartime Powers

The Daily Californian, March 4, 2009 by Alexandra Wilcox
http://www.dailycal.org/article/104646/professor_john_yoo_s_recently_released_memos_draw_#comments

-Robert H. Cole … said Yoo’s Oct. 23 memo was a “panicked one lacking in professional objectivity. It’s incredible to me that 9/11 means the president has essentially unlimited power to dispense with our civil liberties,” he said.
-It is not far-fetched that individual rights may be restricted in times of war, said Jesse Choper…. “Most constitutional scholars would agree that the government interest in times of war will be given greater weight by the courts in certain respect in regulation of certain liberties,” he said.