How to use this Page

Edward A. Zelinsky is the Morris and Annie Trachman Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University. In the article below, Zelinsky discuses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc. In LaRue, the Court twice cited an article by Zelinsky. That cited article was an earlier version of several chapters in Zelinsky’s new book, The Origins of the Ownership Society: How The Defined Contribution Paradigm Changed America.

In the pension community, the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, Inc. is widely perceived as a watershed development. In LaRue, a participant in his employer’s 401(k) plan claimed that the plan failed to execute the participant’s investment instructions. This failure, Mr. LaRue alleged, resulted in a lower account balance in his 401(k) account. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Mr. LaRue, if indeed harmed by the inaction of the plan’s fiduciaries, may sue for relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). (more…)

Share This

On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in the famous abortion rights case, Roe v. Wade. To help us look at this important and controversial decision we turned to Kermit Hall’s The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions which offers lively and insightful accounts of over four hundred of the most important cases ever argued before the Court.

Roe. v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), argued 13 Dec. 1971, reargued 11 Oct. 1972, decided 22 Jan. 1973 by vote of 7 to 2; Blackmun for the Court, Douglas, Stewart, and Burger concurring, White and Rehnquist in dissent.

After the middle of the nineteenth century most states, under the prodding of physicians wishing to establish the scientific stature of their activities, adopted laws severely restricting the availability of abortion. The so-called sexual revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, which fostered increased access to contraceptives and the development of contraceptive drugs, also resulted in an increasing number of situations in which women desired abortions. (more…)

Share This

Today is part three in Mark V. Tushnet’s blog series about the 2nd amendment. Tushnet is the author of Out Of Range: Why the Constitution Can’t End the Battle Over Guns and is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. To read the other posts in this series click here.  Be sure to come back tomorrow for the final installment in this series.

The Supreme Court is going to consider whether to decide the constitutionality of the District of Columbia’s complete ban on handgun possession. Suppose the Court adopts the gun-rights position that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. What happens then? (more…)

Share This

Yesterday, R and I went to The Big K to purchase the "camp essential list."

Towels.
Sheets.
Shampoo, soap, lotion.
Flip flops.
A calling card. (No cell phones allowed)
Bandages for blisters.
Wart stuff, just in case.
Advil for sore dancer muscles.
Shaving cream.
Hair ties.
Hair spray.

The last time we went shopping for camp was the summer she got sick. I am trying to treat these last two days with a big smile. I do not have to be nervous. She has earned this moment. She is a beautiful, healthy dancer.

We drop her off on Sunday.

Laurie Shrage, the author of Abortion and Social Responsibility: Depolarizing the Debate, is a Professor of Philosophy at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. Below she looks at the Partial Birth Abortion Act.

Banning “Gruesome and Inhumane” Abortions (more…)

Share This