FINDLAW COLUMNISTS

• The Emotional Appeal of Presidential Candidates Who Are Not Too Intelligent: Why Republican Candidate John McCain's Poor Academic Record May Be One of His Strongest Political Assets

• Why a Texas Appellate Court Seriously Erred In Concluding that Texas Child Protective Services Should Not Have Rescued All of the Children at the FLDS Compound

• A New York Appellate Court Holds that an Email Message Can Amend an Employment Contract: Why the Decision Was Correct, and What It Means for Employees

• Censorship at Yale: Why the University's Refusal to Exhibit Student Aliza Shvarts's Senior Art Project Violated Its Speech Code

• The California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Marriage for Same-Sex Couples: Why Domestic Partnerships Are Not Enough: Part One in a Two-Part Series of Columns

• The California Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Marriage for Same-Sex Couples: How Conservative Reasons Led to a Progressive Result: Part Two in a Two-Part Series of Columns

• Hearsay, the Sixth Amendment, and Framers' Intent: The U.S. Supreme Court Hears Argument in Giles v. California

FINDLAW COLUMNISTS:

THE EMOTIONAL APPEAL OF PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES WHO ARE NOT TOO INTELLIGENT: WHY REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE JOHN MCCAIN'S POOR ACADEMIC RECORD MAY BE ONE OF HIS STRONGEST POLITICAL ASSETS
(John Dean) - FindLaw columnist and former counsel to the president John Dean considers the role of emotion in the 2008 presidential race -- and, particularly, the role of hostility toward candidates who are perceived to be overly elite, intellectual, or privileged. Dean contends that while, in reality, John McCain is much more privileged than Barack Obama, ultimately it's voters' perceptions that count, and McCain has done a better job of conveying a "regular guy" persona that appeals to voters. Dean draws upon both a recent New York Times article and a leading book on the role of emotion in politics to argue that Barack Obama must change his approach -- and/or welcome Hillary Clinton to the ticket -- if Obama wants to sway voters' emotions to support him. Read more...

WHY A TEXAS APPELLATE COURT SERIOUSLY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT TEXAS CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES SHOULD NOT HAVE RESCUED ALL OF THE CHILDREN AT THE FLDS COMPOUND
(Marci Hamilton) - FindLaw columnist and visiting Princeton law and public affairs professor Marci Hamilton argues that a Texas intermediate appellate court was very wrong to hold that the recent raid on a Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints compound within the state was illegal -- in a decision authorities are appealing to the Texas Supreme Court. Hamilton contends that evidence of felonies committed within the compound, including polygamy and child rape, provided a solid legal basis for the authorities to act. Read more...

A NEW YORK APPELLATE COURT HOLDS THAT AN EMAIL MESSAGE CAN AMEND AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT: WHY THE DECISION WAS CORRECT, AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR EMPLOYEES
(Anita Ramasastry) - FindLaw columnist and visiting National University of Ireland-Galway law professor Anita Ramasastry discusses a recent New York intermediate appellate decision holding that a series of emails with signature lines satisfied the Statute of Frauds and was otherwise sufficient to modify the terms of a CEO's employment contract. Ramasastry contends that the decision was correct in light of New York's law on electronic communications, and notes that companies have the freedom to opt out, if they so choose, by noting in their original contracts with employees that only personally signed and faxed modifications will be effective. Read more...

CENSORSHIP AT YALE: WHY THE UNIVERSITY'S REFUSAL TO EXHIBIT STUDENT ALIZA SHVARTS'S SENIOR ART PROJECT VIOLATED ITS SPEECH CODE
(Julie Hilden) - FindLaw columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden contends that Yale University betrayed its own stated commitment to free speech when it recently denied senior Aliza Shvarts the ability to display her senior project in an end-of-year exhibit. Shvarts's controversial project stemmed from her decision to repeatedly inseminate herself and then use an abortifacient at a time when any embryo she might have carried would have existed for about two to three weeks. Hilden argues that Art Department faculty should have had the last word on whether Shvarts's project was high enough in quality to display, and that administrators' rationales for denying Shvarts access to the exhibit were post-hoc rationalizations that do not hold water, when they are more closely examined. Read more...

THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES: WHY DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIPS ARE NOT ENOUGH: PART ONE IN A TWO-PART SERIES OF COLUMNS
(Joanna Grossman and Linda McClain) - In the first in a two-part series of columns, FindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman and FindLaw guest columnist and Boston University law professor Linda McClain consider a number of interesting issues surrounding the California Supreme Court's recent decision holding that the state constitution requires that California grant same-sex couples an equal right to marry. In particular, Grossman and McClain discuss how the California decision affected the national legal landscape in this area; explain the evolution of California's marriage and domestic partnership laws; and consider the significance of whether same-sex unions are dubbed "marriages" or go by an alternate name such as "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions." Read more...

THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF MARRIAGE FOR SAME-SEX COUPLES: HOW CONSERVATIVE REASONS LED TO A PROGRESSIVE RESULT: PART TWO IN A TWO-PART SERIES OF COLUMNS
(Joanna Grossman and Linda McClain) - In the second in a two-part series of columns, FindLaw columnist and Hofstra law professor Joanna Grossman and FindLaw guest columnist and Boston University law professor Linda McClain continue their analysis of the California Supreme Court's recent, headline-making decision holding that the state constitution requires that California grant same-sex couples an equal right to marry. In this column, Grossman and McClain raise the point that, ironically, the California decision -- though liberal in its result -- was grounded upon socially-conservative beliefs about the importance -- and, indeed, fundamental nature -- of marriage in society. They contend that this potential tension can be resolved because, whether or not society should ideally center on marriage, there is no question that, in fact, it does. In light of this reality, they argue, the exclusion of same-sex couples from a treasured, government-conferred status sends a message of! insult and inequality that it is intolerable for the government to convey to its citizens. Read more...

HEARSAY, THE SIXTH AMENDMENT, AND FRAMERS' INTENT: THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HEARS ARGUMENT IN GILES V. CALIFORNIA
(Sherry Colb) - FindLaw columnist and visiting Columbia law professor Sherry Colb discusses a Sixth Amendment case on which the Supreme Court recently heard oral argument. As Colb explains, the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause guarantees a criminal defendant's right to cross-examine his accuser if his accuser offers testimony against him. The case before the Court asks whether this right is triggered when the defendant is on trial for murder; the prosecution wants the jury to hear the accuser's prior statement to the police; but the accuser is also the defendant's alleged murder victim who, of course, can no longer be subjected to cross-examination. Colb explains the difficult issues the case raises -- including whether the Court should apply the common law rule that a right can be forfeited by the wrongdoing of the person who claims that right. Read more...