Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

In (Partial) Defense of Liz Cheney

Post author:Irene Ten Cate
Post published:November 27, 2013
Post category:Civil Rights Media & Journalism Public

Is it possible to support a loved one’s life choices if you believe those choices should not exist? Consider the following hypotheticals:

Scenario #1: Your teenage daughter tells you she is pregnant from her no-good former boyfriend, and that she wishes to terminate the pregnancy. You are pro-life. Yet you realize that your daughter is the only one who can decide what to do (assuming she is not subject to parental consent laws, and perhaps even if she is). So you drive your child to her doctors’ appointments. You also tell her that despite your fundamental objections to abortion, you will do your best to make peace with her decision.

Scenario #2: You strongly believe children are entitled to information about their genetic parents. For this reason, you think sperm and egg banks should be allowed to work only with donors who consent to the disclosure of their identity and some basic information, and who agree to a minimum number of visits with any genetic offspring. Your sister has a baby conceived with sperm from an anonymous donor. You were beyond thrilled when she told you about her pregnancy, and you love your new nephew to pieces. Your views on the need for regulation of sperm and egg donor banks have not changed.

If these scenarios sound plausible, it is because our moral convictions don’t always dictate our personal interactions. Nor should they. The ability to appreciate that others may embrace values that are different from our own, and to react to their decisions with understanding and even respect, is a sign of maturity.

Single Sixteen-Year Terms Would Build Confidence in State Supreme Court, Task Force Members Say

Post author:Alan J. Borsuk
Post published:November 27, 2013
Post category:Election Law Public Speakers at Marquette Wisconsin Supreme Court

The idea of the judiciary as independent guardians of the rule of law has taken a beating in Wisconsin in recent years, amid highly contentious state Supreme Court races and the widely publicized divisions within the state Supreme Court.

What plan with a realistic chance of being enacted could help restore respect for the judicial branch of state government as separate from politics?

That premise and that question shaped the work of a four-member task force of the State Bar of Wisconsin, and what the task force recommended recently is a plan that would be unique in the nation: Election of state Supreme Court justices to 16-year terms, without any opportunity to run for reelection.

The four members of the task force described how they settled on that proposal in a recent “On the Issues with Mike Gousha” program at Eckstein Hall.

Protecting the Public from (Certain) Emerging Growth Companies

Post author:Christopher Flowers
Post published:November 26, 2013
Post category:Business Regulation Corporate Law Public

Part one of this blog post concluded that Fantex’s IPO represents an unintended consequence of the 2012 JOBS Act. The costs imposed on startups attempting to go public are significant, and the burden of complying with mandatory disclosure laws can deter even the most-attractive startups from commencing an IPO. The JOBS Act is intended to decrease the burden on startups attempting to raise necessary capital by reducing the financial disclosure requirements normally imposed on public companies.

One way the Act reduces disclosure is through the status of “emerging growth company.” Most notably, an emerging growth company is defined as an entity with less than $1 billion in annual revenue. By falling within this broad definition, a startup may take advantage of reduced disclosure requirements for up to five years.

Based on this $1 billion threshold, the definition of emerging growth company is broad enough to encompass companies either experiencing an accelerated growth rate or with high-growth potential. Unfortunately, Fantex also falls within this broad definition of emerging growth company, as noted in its prospectus. Therefore, the real question is whether the definition is too broad so that companies with little, or no, demonstrated growth are being granted the same access to the investing public as companies that are actually growing.