Super Mujer: Justice Sonia Sotomayor as a Role Model

When President Barack Obama nominated Justice Sonia Sotomayor a year ago, the debate surrounding her confirmation included a wide array of scrutiny.  Some of the items of discussion were more relevant and more substantive than others.

As the US Supreme Court’s first Latina, third female, and first Type 1 Diabetic to serve on the bench, the greatest amount of focus seemed to fall upon her non-legal, personal history.  Particularly, as this blog has noted, the confirmation hearings concentrated on whether that personal history and her self-identified “Wise Latina”-ness would enhance or detract from her ability to effectively and fairly “say what the law is.”

Nearly a year after her confirmation, the evaluation of the Wise Latina’s first session as a Justice has already begun.  But what if, a year later, we approached the discussion concerning her role on the Court from another direction?  Instead of a debate centered only on Justice Sotomayor’s specific job performance, the discussion might also include the value that comes from choosing a role model that can inspire the underrepresented within the legal community.

Continue ReadingSuper Mujer: Justice Sonia Sotomayor as a Role Model

From M’Naghten to Hinckley to Clark: “The Incredible Shrinking Insanity Defense”

In 1843, Daniel M’Naghten (left) killed the secretary of the Prime Minister of England.  Medical evidence introduced at his murder trial indicated that he suffered paranoid delusions, leading to his acquittal and eventually to judicial recognition of something like the modern insanity defense. 

After a period of expansion in the mid-twentieth century, the insanity defense has been progressively restricted since John Hinckley’s successful use of the defense during his trial on charges arising from his attempted assassination of President Reagan.  Janie Kim now recounts the story of the “incredible shrinking insanity defense,” as she calls it, in a fascinating new paper on SSRN.

She focuses particularly on the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Clark v. Arizona

Continue ReadingFrom M’Naghten to Hinckley to Clark: “The Incredible Shrinking Insanity Defense”

What’s Good for the Goose . . .

Earlier this week, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in In Re Sherwin-Williams Co. The court upheld Judge Lynn Adelman’s decision not to recuse himself from a case pending before him in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Burton v. American Cyandamid, et al

Sherwin-Williams is currently before Adelman as a defendant in a personal injury action involving lead paint, heard in diversity jurisdiction. S-W believed “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” (the relevant legal standard) because he had written an article defending the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s controversial lead paint decision in Thomas v. Mallett, 2005 WI 129.  (The article is Adelman & Fite, Exercising Judicial Power: A Response to the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s Critics, 91 Marq. L. Rev. 425 (2007)). In the article, Adelman defended the Court’s 04-05 term generally and praised Thomas particularly as a “positive development” which ensured that “the doors of the courthouse remain open.” Id. at 446. 

Based on this characterization, S-W sought his recusal in this case. 

Continue ReadingWhat’s Good for the Goose . . .