http://www.legalaffairs.org/ The magazine at the intersection of law and life. en-us Legal Affairs 2005
Chris believes that, at least when it comes to information networks, technology is changing the conditions for market entry in physical networking. He points to fiber]]> http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_net-neutrality0506.msp#Thursday-Wu Thu, 04 May 2006 10:39:17 AM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_net-neutrality0506.msp#Thursday-Yoo Thu, 04 May 2006 07:49:42 AM
So the classic challenge with infrastructure projects like the last mile is]]> http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_net-neutrality0506.msp#Wednesday-Wu Wed, 03 May 2006 07:05:32 PM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_net-neutrality0506.msp#Wednesday-Yoo Wed, 03 May 2006 08:23:45 AM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_net-neutrality0506.msp#Tuesday-Wu Tue, 02 May 2006 07:05:38 PM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_net-neutrality0506.msp#Tuesday-Yoo Tue, 02 May 2006 11:58:17 AM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_net-neutrality0506.msp#Monday-Wu Mon, 01 May 2006 07:09:29 PM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_net-neutrality0506.msp#Monday-Yoo Mon, 01 May 2006 04:52:06 AM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_mass-insurance0406.msp#Thursday-Marmor Thu, 13 Apr 2006 05:21:37 PM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_mass-insurance0406.msp#Thursday-Tanner Thu, 13 Apr 2006 10:10:27 AM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_mass-insurance0406.msp#Wednesday-Marmor Wed, 12 Apr 2006 08:15:11 PM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_mass-insurance0406.msp#Wednesday-Tanner Wed, 12 Apr 2006 10:26:59 AM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_mass-insurance0406.msp#Tuesday-Marmor Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:28:05 PM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_mass-insurance0406.msp#Tuesday-Tanner Tue, 11 Apr 2006 04:30:41 PM Daubert. Nevertheless, there are some issues from my previous post that require some expatiating to better clarify my areas of concern.

I am glad that you can see the merit in having]]> http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_daubert0406.msp#Thursday-Kesan Thu, 06 Apr 2006 03:30:46 PM Daubert and the process it has created is perfect. In fact, I think I indicated the opposite on Tuesday. So I agree with you there probably are ways to]]> http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_daubert0406.msp#Thursday-Martinez Thu, 06 Apr 2006 10:25:12 AM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_daubert0406.msp#Wednesday-Kesan Wed, 05 Apr 2006 09:32:33 PM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_daubert0406.msp#Wednesday-Martinez Wed, 05 Apr 2006 02:28:21 PM
Normally, this situation permits the opposing side]]> http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_daubert0406.msp#Tuesday-Kesan Tue, 04 Apr 2006 09:15:31 PM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_daubert0406.msp#Tuesday-Martinez Tue, 04 Apr 2006 12:33:57 PM Daubert standard.

Mike notes that Daubert was the Supreme Court's effort to keep junk science out of the courtroom. I agree that Daubert and its progeny, Joiner and Kumho Tire, attempt to]]> http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_daubert0406.msp#Monday-Kesan Mon, 03 Apr 2006 09:10:14 PM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_daubert0406.msp#Monday-Martinez Mon, 03 Apr 2006 07:44:32 AM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_sex-selection0306.msp#Friday-Katz Rothman Fri, 31 Mar 2006 01:52:39 PM
But why would]]> http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_sex-selection0306.msp#Friday-Robertson Fri, 31 Mar 2006 08:20:24 AM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_sex-selection0306.msp#Thursday-Katz Rothman Thu, 30 Mar 2006 12:22:53 PM
But you do]]> http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_sex-selection0306.msp#Thursday-Robertson Thu, 30 Mar 2006 07:52:45 AM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_sex-selection0306.msp#Wednesday-Katz Rothman Wed, 29 Mar 2006 05:42:37 PM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_sex-selection0306.msp#Wednesday-Robertson Wed, 29 Mar 2006 01:04:02 PM
You say that you agree with me that "the issue comes down to whether doctors offering]]> http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_sex-selection0306.msp#Tuesday-Katz Rothman Tue, 28 Mar 2006 03:57:53 PM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_sex-selection0306.msp#Tuesday-Robertson Tue, 28 Mar 2006 06:48:06 AM
But John, it is a problemand#0151;don't kid yourself about that.

I'm not about to argue against "choice," against any woman's]]> http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_sex-selection0306.msp#Monday-Katz Rothman Mon, 27 Mar 2006 02:10:19 PM Roe v. Wade sets no limits on the reasons for abortion, and compared to abortion, non-medical sex selection will continue to be relatively rare unless preconception sperm separation or pre-implantation screening of embryos is certified as safe and effective. Despite this pragmatic difference, the very idea of using high-tech means]]> http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_sex-selection0306.msp#Monday-Robertson Mon, 27 Mar 2006 06:52:00 AM
I don't believe that the effects on the divorce rate of easy unilateral divorce can be effectively measuredand#0151;and I think Paul Amato would agree. Besides, I believe that Leora Friedberg's work measuring the effect in a state of the adoption]]> http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_no-fault-divorce0306.msp#Thursday-Spaht Thu, 23 Mar 2006 03:32:41 PM
Too much of our debate so far has focused on the effects of]]> http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_no-fault-divorce0306.msp#Thursday-Wolfers Thu, 23 Mar 2006 09:36:17 AM both agree that it differs from the no-fault option. Unilateral divorceand#0151;unilateral repudiation in over 85% of the casesand#0151;is what I oppose vociferously.

I worry about what empirical data supports in terms of who most often seeks]]> http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_no-fault-divorce0306.msp#Wednesday-Spaht Wed, 22 Mar 2006 02:45:03 PM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_no-fault-divorce0306.msp#Wednesday-Wolfers Wed, 22 Mar 2006 07:53:18 AM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_no-fault-divorce0306.msp#Tuesday-Spaht Tue, 21 Mar 2006 11:37:14 AM
While both points are relevant to broader debates about appropriate social policy, neither are relevant to the current debate]]> http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_no-fault-divorce0306.msp#Tuesday-Wolfers Tue, 21 Mar 2006 08:36:04 AM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_no-fault-divorce0306.msp#Monday-Spaht Mon, 20 Mar 2006 12:35:20 PM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_no-fault-divorce0306.msp#Monday-Wolfers Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:09:22 AM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_parental-notification0306.msp#Friday-Collett Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:54:44 PM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_parental-notification0306.msp#Friday-Mutcherson Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:25:53 AM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_parental-notification0306.msp#Thursday-Collett Thu, 16 Mar 2006 06:06:17 PM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_parental-notification0306.msp#Thursday-Mutcherson Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:32:30 AM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_parental-notification0306.msp#Wednesday-Collett Wed, 15 Mar 2006 03:53:55 PM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_parental-notification0306.msp#Wednesday-Mutcherson Wed, 15 Mar 2006 08:39:09 AM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_parental-notification0306.msp#Tuesday-Collett Tue, 14 Mar 2006 03:26:51 PM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_parental-notification0306.msp#Tuesday-Mutcherson Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:31:26 AM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_parental-notification0306.msp#Monday-Collett Mon, 13 Mar 2006 04:55:37 PM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_parental-notification0306.msp#Monday-Mutcherson Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:45:19 PM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_fair-rumsfeld0306.msp#Friday-Moller Fri, 10 Mar 2006 02:11:04 PM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_fair-rumsfeld0306.msp#Thursday-Dwyer Thu, 09 Mar 2006 10:04:20 PM
Seriously, though, I'm not sure your hypo is on point. You seem to assume I'm arguing Dale protects any crazy thing a group does to send a message. I'm making a narrower point: that]]> http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_fair-rumsfeld0306.msp#Thursday-Moller Thu, 09 Mar 2006 01:04:29 PM
It seems to me that the FAIR case is pretty easily]]> http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_fair-rumsfeld0306.msp#Wednesday-Dwyer Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:55:29 PM Dale concerned a group's right to choose members. But Dale was also an instance of a larger constitutional principle.

Don't take my word for it. Take Dale's.]]> http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_fair-rumsfeld0306.msp#Wednesday-Moller Wed, 08 Mar 2006 07:02:07 AM http://www.legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_fair-rumsfeld0306.msp#Tuesday-Dwyer Tue, 07 Mar 2006 09:39:44 PM