ABA Journal: The chances of obtaining a tenure-track job at a law school begin to diminish after eight or nine years of practice. And that is partly why law schools are not producing lawyers who are trained in legal practice, the New York Times reports. The story quotes an unidentified lawyer who is an adjunct professor. Law practice experience “can be fatal,” he says, “because the academy wants people who are not sullied by the practice of law.”
- Posted: 11/22/2011
- |
- Category: Bench & Bar
- |
- Source: www.abajournal.com
- Tags: Category: Bench and Bar, Topic: Colleges, Topic: Education
ADF President and General Counsel Alan E. Sears at theTellADF Blog: A picture, they say, is worth a thousand words. It’s worth infinitely more than that, though, to defenders of life in the womb, who know that even a glimpse of a living child through a fuzzy ultrasound image is often enough to persuade a young mother not to abort the baby inside her.
- Posted: 11/22/2011
- |
- Category: ADF in the News
- |
- Source: blog.telladf.org
- Tags: ADF: Alan E. Sears, ADF: Media Clips, Alliance Defense Fund, Category: Sanctity of Life, State: North Carolina, Topic: Abortion
MetroWeekly: Telling the court that there are no facts in dispute in the case, SLDN lawyers argue that the court should rule on the legal issues in the case and decide those issues in SLDN’s favor. On Friday, Nov. 18, however, the Republican leadership-controlled House Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group filed a notice before the court announcing that, should the federal government decline to defend DOMA in this case as it has done in other cases challenging DOMA, BLAG stands ready to seek intervention to do so itself.
- Posted: 11/22/2011
- |
- Category: Marriage & Family
- |
- Source: www.metroweekly.com
- Tags: Category: Marriage and Family, Group: Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), Topic: Homosexual Agenda, Topic: Marriage, Topic: Military, ZZ: McLaughlin v. Panetta
OneNewsNow.com: “These pro-life nurses should not be bullied into employment discrimination that is forbidden both by federal law and a court order,” Bowman contends. “The hospital is threatening to impose discriminatory ‘transfers’ or ‘changes’ in the employment conditions for these nurses because of their religious and moral objections to abortion. Such discrimination against pro-life nurses violates state and federal law, the court’s order in this case, and even the hospital’s own public statements saying that ‘no nurse must assist in procedures to which they object.’”
- Posted: 11/22/2011
- |
- Category: ADF in the News
Hospital accused of bullying nurses who oppose abortion: But according to a report from the Alliance Defense Fund, the hospital – after the judge’s order – told nurses who objected to being ordered to participate in abortions that among the “accommodations” that could be arranged would be “changes in duties, changes in scheduling, and/or transfer to another nursing position that does not involve duties that are objectionable.”
- Posted: 11/22/2011
- |
- Category: ADF in the News
- |
- Source: www.wnd.com
- Tags: ADF: Matthew S. Bowman, ADF: Media Clips, Alliance Defense Fund, Category: Religious Liberty, Category: Sanctity of Life, State: New Jersey, Topic: Abortion, Topic: Conscience, ZZ: Danquah v. University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, ZZADF: 35875
OneNewsNow.com: So, ADF is challenging the constitutionality of the measure, and attorney Joel Oster further explains the objection. “Pastors and churches shouldn’t live in fear of being punished by the government for exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech,” he contends. “No law or government official can rob a faith group of its constitutionally protected rights just because that official would prefer not to be removed from office.”
- Posted: 11/22/2011
- |
- Category: ADF in the News
- |
- Source: www.onenewsnow.com
- Tags: ADF: Joel Oster, ADF: Media Clips, Alliance Defense Fund, Category: Religious Liberty, State: Texas, Topic: Elections, Topic: Homosexual Agenda, ZZ: Hoyt v. City of El Paso, ZZADF: 36052
SCOTUSblog: This is one of a continuing series of articles the blog will publish over the next several weeks, explaining more fully the new federal health care law, and the Supreme Court’s review of the constitutionality of key parts of that law. This article deals with whether any challenger to the new law’s individual mandate should have been allowed in court to try to overturn the mandate and its attached penalty. That is an issue that potentially could postpone for at least four years a decision on the constitutionality of the mandate.
- Posted: 11/22/2011
- |
- Category: Marriage & Family
- |
- Source: www.scotusblog.com
- Tags: Court: U.S. Supreme, Topic: Obamacare, ZZ: Florida v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services
|
Latest Posts
-
www.lifenews.com
05/21/2013
LifeNews: What do established sources say about the survival rates of babies born at various stages of gestation?
-
cnsnews.com
05/21/2013
CNSNews: “Now stop to think about it – the government getting involved in somebody having a prayer meeting. It appears that the IRS essentially offered this group a quid pro quo – You can become a charity if you don’t protest in front of a Planned Parenthood, generally speaking so you don’t have to worry about 6103,” Grassley said.
-
www.catholicculture.org
05/21/2013
Catholic Culture: In recent weeks, Islamist rebels who assumed power in the Central African Republic in March have kidnapped the rector of the cathedral in the nation’s capital as well as the archdiocesan chancelloor.
|