Articles Posted in David Badertscher

by

A preemptive pardon is an act of clemency issued by a head of state or government before charges are formally brought against an individual. Though relatively rare, this type of pardon can generate intense public and legal debate. To understand the complexities of preemptive pardons, it is necessary to examine their legal basis, potential benefits and drawbacks, as well as historical examples that illustrate their impact on justice, accountability, and executive authority.

Legal Basis for Preemptive Pardons

The legal authority for preemptive pardons in the United States is rooted in the Constitution and clarified through key judicial precedents. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the president the “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” This broad language has been interpreted to allow for pardons at any stage of the judicial process, including before charges are formally brought—a concept known as a preemptive pardon.

Continue reading

by

About Jurimetrics Journal:

The Jurimetrics Journal is published quarterly  “Jurimetrics is the oldest and most widely circulated peer-reviewed journal in its field and is proud to be the official journal of the American Bar Association Science & Technology Law Section. Currently, the journal is housed at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law at Arizona State University (ASU Law) and cosponsored by ASU Law’s Center for Law, Science and Innovation (LSI). An LSI Center faculty fellow advises the Jurimetrics executive board and editorial staff. The journal provides scholars and researchers with a wealth of thoughtful articles. It is frequently cited in opinions of state and federal courts, legal treatises, textbooks, and scholarly articles in a wide range of other journals. These distinctions support Jurimetrics’ claim of being the premier peer-reviewed journal of law, science, and technology.”

From the Spring 2024 issue:

Continue reading

by

From: Washington Post Gift Article. December 4, 2024:

“At issue is a Tennessee law barring transgender minors from using puberty blockers and hormones, treatments the state characterizes as risky and unproven. Lawmakers said the state should instead encourage adolescents to ‘appreciate their sex, particularly as they undergo puberty’ “.

To read complete Post gift article by Casey Parks and Ann E. Marinow, click here. This article contains useful links to other Post articles on topics related to this subject.

Continue reading

by

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the integrity of the U.S. Supreme Court has faced increasing scrutiny amid reports of unreported financial dealings and alleged ethical lapses by some of its justices. In response, the Court issued its first-ever formal ethics code on November 13, 2023, marking a historic shift toward greater transparency. However, this self-imposed code relies on internal enforcement, leaving critics to question its effectiveness and it’s ability to compare it to more robust measures proposed in Congress. Legislative efforts, such as the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act of 2023 and the Supreme Court Ethics and Investigation Act of 2024 underscore a growing demand for external oversight and standardized accountability.

This article explores the intersection of these developments, examining whether the Court’s new ethics code sufficiently addresses public concerns or if legislative interventions remain necessary to restore trust in the nation’s highest judicial body. By tracing the origins, goals, and limitations of these initiatives, we aim to provide an overview of the ongoing debate over judicial ethics and reform. *

Continue reading

by

The Justice Department’s potential move to compel Google to sell its Chrome browser could significantly reshape the digital landscape, with direct and indirect consequences for the ability of law libraries to utilize computer-assisted legal research (CALR) to serve patrons effectively. This essay explores how such a divestiture might affect CALR resources, access, and functionality, while also considering implications for law libraries’ broader operational frameworks.

  1. Changes in Browser Compatibility with CALR Platforms

Most computer-assisted legal research tools, such as Westlaw, LexisNexis, and Bloomberg Law, are optimized for popular web browsers, including Chrome. Google Chrome’s dominance in the browser market (approximately 60% as of recent statistics) has led developers to prioritize compatibility with Chrome over other browsers. If Chrome’s ownership changes, there is a possibility that its development priorities, security protocols, or support for certain legal research tools could shift. This could necessitate costly adjustments by CALR providers and law libraries.

Continue reading

by

David Badertscher Honored at the 14th Annual FellowshipLIFE Foundation Gala

David Badertscher, a resident of Fellowship Village in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, and former resident of Westfield, and publisher of the Criminal Law Library Blog was honored at the 14th Annual FellowshipLIFE Foundation Gala. The event took place at the Heidrich Hotel in New Brunswick, where David was recognized with the following citation:

David Badertscher, Fellowship Village Gala Honoree Citation:

Continue reading

by

From Congressional Budget Office (CBO):

CBO’s Budget Director, Philip Swagel, testified before the House Committee on the Budget, September 11, 2024.

Summary of Testimony:

Continue reading

by

From the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)*.

As reported by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee on June 18, 2024.

Summary:

Continue reading

by

As artificial intelligence, including generative AI, becomes increasingly common in litigation, judges across the United States are working to establish guidelines to prevent its misuse in court. Since Judge Brantley Starr of the Northern District of Texas issued the first standing order on AI in legal filings in 2023, more than 200 state and federal judges have followed suit, creating new standing orders, local rules, and pretrial guidance to address AI use and its potential pitfalls. Just last month, the newly established Texas Business Court included a caution on AI in its inaugural Local Rules.

This rapidly shifting landscape reflects judges’ efforts to address both the opportunities and challenges that AI presents. However, no uniform approach has yet emerged, with judges charting individual courses in their courtrooms and some broadening their orders to cover evidentiary concerns amid growing fears of deep fake evidence. While some judges are exploring ways to integrate AI responsibly, their primary focus remains on curbing its misuse. Practitioners should stay informed, as courts continue to adapt to this evolving frontier.

References:

Continue reading

by

The following is a discussion of the book Gitlow v. New York: Every Idea an Incitement. In his study, Marc Lendler opens up the world of American radicalism, traces the origin of the incorporation doctrine, which was addressed for the first time in this case, and the ebb and flow of Gitlow as a precedent through the Cold War and beyond.  Gitlow v. New York: Every Idea an Incitement is a book for our time.

In 1919 American Communist Party member Benjamin Gitlow was arrested for distributing a “Left Wing Manifesto,” a publication inspired by the Russian Revolution. He was charged with violating New York’s Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902, which outlawed the advocacy of any doctrine advocating for the violent overthrow of government. Gitlow argued that the law violated his right to free speech, but he was still convicted. He appealed  the decision; however, five years later the Supreme Court upheld his sentence by a vote of 7-2.

Throughout the legal proceedings, much attention was devoted to the “bad tendency” doctrine—the idea that speakers and writers were responsible for the probable effects of their words—which the Supreme Court explicitly endorsed in its decision. According to Justice Edward T. Sanford, “A state may punish utterances endangering the foundations of organized government and threatening its overthrow by unlawful means.”

Continue reading
Contact Information
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, David Badertscher
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design