McBlogmick

Sponsored by: United States Attorney’s Office - Northern District of Alabama, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Samford University; Birmingham Police Department, Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office, Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office, Bessemer Police Department, Civil Rights Institute, YWCA, ZONTA, Coordinated Community Response, Alabama Silent Witness Initiative, Family Connection, Inc., Victims of Crime and Leniency

PURPOSE/TARGET AUDIENCE: To promote awareness of Human Trafficking in the State of Alabama and throughout the United States. To educate local, state, federal law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, victim service providers, and other community members on Human Trafficking
issues.

Date & Time: June 11, 2008 - 8:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. (Registration begins at 7:30 a.m.)
June 12, 2008 - 8:30 a.m. - 12 p.m.
Location: Samford University - Brock Recital Hall
800 Lakeshore Drive, Birmingham, Alabama 35229
Phone: (205) 726-2011 — Maps: http://www.samford.edu/maps.html
Registration Information: Fee: $20.00 (Checks/Money Orders are payable to LECC FUND)
Please register by COB, June 4, 2008.

I know it's completely unhelpful for the exams just finished, but yesterday, at Prawfsblawg, Rick Hills had an interesting post on essay exam writing--his advice was to focus on the facts more, and I agree wholeheartedly. In my classes, I'll keep giving similar advice, but feel free to come talk to me more if you'd like.

The California Supreme Court today issued this opinion, Marriage cases.pdf, striking down a California law that limited marriage to opposite sex couples. The court held that the law violated California's constitution. One of the really interesting things about this case was that California had established a civil union system for same sex couples, giving them nearly the same privileges and obligations as couples who were married.

Today's New York Times has a story about improperly appointed judges. The judges are patent judges and the issue is not whether they may be article I judges. That is settled because of the plenary power Congress has over patent issues. The issue instead is about the appointments clause, which requires that "inferior officers" be appointed by "department heads" which is universally thought to be cabinet-level heads. Since 2000, the director of the Patent and Trademark Office, rather than the Secretary of Commerce, has appointed these judges. And the S. Ct. has held that judges are "inferior officers" and not mere employees.

"But the Justice Department has already all but conceded that Professor Duffy is right. Given the opportunity to dispute him in a December appeals court filing, government lawyers said only that they were at work on a legislative solution."

"They did warn that the impact of Professor Duffy’s discovery could be cataclysmic for the patent world, casting “a cloud over many thousands of board decisions” and “unsettling the expectations of patent holders and licensees across the nation.” But they did not say Professor Duffy was wrong."

"If it was a legislative mistake, it may turn out to be a big one. The patent court hears appeals from people and companies whose patent applications were turned down by patent examiners, and it decides disputes over who invented something first. There is often a lot of money involved."

This is as big as the bankruptcy issue in the late 70s, early 80s.