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.
-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.
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.
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.
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.
San Francisco Daily Journal, March 4, 2009 by Amelia Hansen
http://www.dailyjournal.com (requires registration; go to G:\Law School in the News\News Clips for article)
Aaron Edlin … explained that once a plan for a proposed merger has been filed with the authorities—technically the “first request” for information—the government can make a second request for more details on the deal…. “There will definitely be more situations when you didn’t see a second request before,” Edlin said. “And there will be more mergers that don’t go through.”
-The Orange County Register, March 3, 2009 by Eugene W. Fields
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/government-think-legal-2323245-people-decisions
“These memos I wrote were not for public consumption. They lack a certain polish, I think—would have been better to explain government policy rather than try to give unvarnished, straight-talk legal advice. I certainly would have done that differently, but I don’t think I would have made the basic decisions differently.”
-The Wall Street Journal, March 7, 2009 by John Yoo
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123638439733558185.html#printMode
“In these extraordinary circumstances, while our military put al Qaeda on the run, it was the duty of the government to plan for worst-case scenarios—even if, thankfully, those circumstances never materialized. This was not reckless. It was prudent and responsible. While government officials worked tirelessly to prevent the next attack, lawyers, of which I was one, provided advice on unprecedented questions under the most severe time pressures.”
The New York Times, March 3, 2009 by Debra Kahn
http://www.nytimes.com/inc_com/03greenwire-lawmakers-weigh-jail-time-for-water-polluters-9961.html?emc=eta1I
Increasing the penalties should send a message that inland waters are no less vulnerable than marine waters, said Rick Frank, a former California deputy attorney general and director of the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment at the University of California, Berkeley. “There was a serious concern that [Kinder Morgan] … allowed this spill to occur and didn’t bother reporting it to authorities for a seriously overdue amount of time,” Frank said. “A lot of inland waters are just as sensitive as coastal waters.”
The New York Times, February 28, 2009 by Jesse McKinley
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/us/01sin.html?ref=us&pagewanted=print
“It is very hard to tax illegal vices unless one is comfortable with contradiction,” Mr. MacCoun said. “How can you collect the taxes without documenting the behavior? And how can you document the behavior without making an arrest?”
San Francisco Chronicle, March 1, 2009 by Stephen D. Sugarman
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/01/INDK164MAL.DTL
“Merely telling people to eat less salt is unlikely to do the trick. After all, people like salt for its flavor. Moreover, most of the salt we consume is not added in our home kitchens or at the table. Instead, it’s added by food processors to the food we buy…. A more creative way to attack this problem is with performance-based regulation. This approach imposes outcome targets on business by imposing financial penalties if those targets aren’t met.”