<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:openSearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <description>Sidebar is JURIST's platform for legal professionals, offering perspectives by lawyers and judges on national and international legal developments. </description>
    <title>JURIST - Sidebar</title>
    <link>http://jurist.org/sidebar</link>
    <webMaster>JURIST@pitt.REMOVE_THISedu</webMaster>
         
    
    <item>
      <description>JURIST Guest Columnist Angelique Devaux, a French attorney and LL.M graduate of the Robert McKinney School of Law, discusses the impact of conflict of laws on the same-sex marriage bill passed in France...In a time when France has lost its fame for crusading for human rights, "marriage for all" has been the popular name given to same-sex marriage by the French Socialists' impetus in the pursuit of equality&#151;France has waited 13 years after the Netherlands to address an issue in line with contemporary social reality. On April 23, 2013, President Fran&#231;ois Hollande signed the bill that legalizes same-sex marriage after</description>
      <guid>http://jurist.org/sidebar/2013/05/angelique-devaux-same-sex-marriage.php</guid>
      <pubDate>2013-05-13T13:30:00-05:00</pubDate>
      <title>Same-Sex Marriage in France and Conflict of Laws: an Illusion of Equality</title>
      <link>http://jurist.org/sidebar/2013/05/angelique-devaux-same-sex-marriage.php</link>
      <author>Stephanie Kogut</author>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[JURIST Guest Columnist Angelique Devaux, a French attorney and LL.M graduate of the Robert McKinney School of Law, discusses the impact of conflict of laws on the same-sex marriage bill passed in France...In a time when France has lost its fame for crusading for human rights, "marriage for all" has been the popular name given to same-sex marriage by the French Socialists' impetus in the pursuit of equality&#151;France has waited 13 years after the Netherlands to address an issue in line with contemporary social reality. On April 23, 2013, President Fran&#231;ois Hollande signed the bill that legalizes same-sex marriage after]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <description>JURIST Guest Columnist Megan Lindsey, counsel for the National Council for Adoption, discusses the legal and practical impact of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl and the Indian Child Welfare Act...On April 16, 2013, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. I had the privilege of being in the room as the justices took the bench and heard arguments. I've been keeping a close eye on this case for around two years now. As counsel for the National Council For Adoption, I was honored to participate in the process of submitting amici briefs to the</description>
      <guid>http://jurist.org/sidebar/2013/05/megan-lindsey-adoptive-couple.php</guid>
      <pubDate>2013-05-06T14:15:00-05:00</pubDate>
      <title>What about Veronica?: A look into Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl</title>
      <link>http://jurist.org/sidebar/2013/05/megan-lindsey-adoptive-couple.php</link>
      <author>Stephanie Kogut</author>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[JURIST Guest Columnist Megan Lindsey, counsel for the National Council for Adoption, discusses the legal and practical impact of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl and the Indian Child Welfare Act...On April 16, 2013, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. I had the privilege of being in the room as the justices took the bench and heard arguments. I've been keeping a close eye on this case for around two years now. As counsel for the National Council For Adoption, I was honored to participate in the process of submitting amici briefs to the]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <description>JURIST Guest Columnist Bruce Abramson of Rimon PC argues that in the absence of sufficient evidence, public policy favors the patentability of genetic tools...The conventional shorthand for the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad, Inc. case, argued before the Supreme Court on April 15, 2013, is that it is a dispute about the patentability of human genes. This shorthand is misleading. No one suggests that genes, as they appear in the human body, are subject to patent law&#151;and the consequent restrictions, fees and exclusive licenses that patentees may choose to apply. A less misleading, though less beguiling, characterization of the</description>
      <guid>http://jurist.org/sidebar/2013/04/bruce-abramson-genetic-patents.php</guid>
      <pubDate>2013-04-30T16:45:00-05:00</pubDate>
      <title>On Patenting Human Genes, the Evidence Favors Myriad</title>
      <link>http://jurist.org/sidebar/2013/04/bruce-abramson-genetic-patents.php</link>
      <author>John Paul Regan</author>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[JURIST Guest Columnist Bruce Abramson of Rimon PC argues that in the absence of sufficient evidence, public policy favors the patentability of genetic tools...The conventional shorthand for the Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad, Inc. case, argued before the Supreme Court on April 15, 2013, is that it is a dispute about the patentability of human genes. This shorthand is misleading. No one suggests that genes, as they appear in the human body, are subject to patent law&#151;and the consequent restrictions, fees and exclusive licenses that patentees may choose to apply. A less misleading, though less beguiling, characterization of the]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <description>JURIST Guest Columnist Joseph Marren of KStone Partners LLC continues his discussion of Caperton and the Statement and Account Clause...The Court in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. asks not whether the judge is actually, subjectively biased, but whether the average judge in his position is "likely" to be neutral (or whether there is an unconstitutional "potential for bias"). In defining these standards, the Court has asked whether, "'under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness,'" the interest "'poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee of</description>
      <guid>http://jurist.org/sidebar/2013/04/joseph-marren-caperton-partII.php</guid>
      <pubDate>2013-04-18T15:30:00-05:00</pubDate>
      <title>The Statement and Account Clause and Caperton: Part II</title>
      <link>http://jurist.org/sidebar/2013/04/joseph-marren-caperton-partII.php</link>
      <author>Stephen Krug</author>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[JURIST Guest Columnist Joseph Marren of KStone Partners LLC continues his discussion of Caperton and the Statement and Account Clause...The Court in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. asks not whether the judge is actually, subjectively biased, but whether the average judge in his position is "likely" to be neutral (or whether there is an unconstitutional "potential for bias"). In defining these standards, the Court has asked whether, "'under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness,'" the interest "'poses such a risk of actual bias or prejudgment that the practice must be forbidden if the guarantee of]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <description>JURIST Guest Columnist Colin Reingold of the Orleans Parish Public Defenders discusses the recent constitutional challenge to the Louisiana "felon with a firearm" statute... On March 21, 2013, Judge Darryl Derbigny of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court granted a motion challenging the constitutionality of Louisiana's felon with a firearm statute (Louisiana Revised Statute Article 14:95.1). He was right to do so. This past November, an overwhelming majority of Louisiana voters approved an amendment to the Louisiana constitution that elevated the standard of review for arms restrictions to strict scrutiny. In the 1970s, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the</description>
      <guid>http://jurist.org/sidebar/2013/04/colin-reingold-lousiana-guns.php</guid>
      <pubDate>2013-04-14T15:00:00-05:00</pubDate>
      <title>A Fundamental Right: the Constitutionality of Louisiana's Felon with a Gun Law</title>
      <link>http://jurist.org/sidebar/2013/04/colin-reingold-lousiana-guns.php</link>
      <author>Alexandra Cabonor</author>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[JURIST Guest Columnist Colin Reingold of the Orleans Parish Public Defenders discusses the recent constitutional challenge to the Louisiana "felon with a firearm" statute... On March 21, 2013, Judge Darryl Derbigny of the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court granted a motion challenging the constitutionality of Louisiana's felon with a firearm statute (Louisiana Revised Statute Article 14:95.1). He was right to do so. This past November, an overwhelming majority of Louisiana voters approved an amendment to the Louisiana constitution that elevated the standard of review for arms restrictions to strict scrutiny. In the 1970s, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <description>JURIST Guest Columnists Hank Asbill, Brian Murray, and Andrew Pinson of Jones Day argue that allowing prosecutors to use a defendant's refusal to answer pre-arrest, pre-Miranda law enforcement questioning as substantive evidence of guilt violates the Fifth Amendment and would permit abusive tactics and government overreaching in white-collar criminal investigations in particular...The ubiquitous Miranda warning explains that "you have the right to remain silent." It then reminds you that when government agents ask you questions, anything you do say "can and will be used against you in a court of law." But what if you don't say anything? What if</description>
      <guid>http://jurist.org/sidebar/2013/04/asbill-murray-pinson-salinas.php</guid>
      <pubDate>2013-04-11T12:45:00-05:00</pubDate>
      <title>Protecting The Right To Remain Silent During Law Enforcement Questioning</title>
      <link>http://jurist.org/sidebar/2013/04/asbill-murray-pinson-salinas.php</link>
      <author>Sean Gallagher</author>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[JURIST Guest Columnists Hank Asbill, Brian Murray, and Andrew Pinson of Jones Day argue that allowing prosecutors to use a defendant's refusal to answer pre-arrest, pre-Miranda law enforcement questioning as substantive evidence of guilt violates the Fifth Amendment and would permit abusive tactics and government overreaching in white-collar criminal investigations in particular...The ubiquitous Miranda warning explains that "you have the right to remain silent." It then reminds you that when government agents ask you questions, anything you do say "can and will be used against you in a court of law." But what if you don't say anything? What if]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <description>JURIST Guest Columnist Joseph Marren of KStone Partners LLC says that, because no person is permitted to be a judge in their own case, Congress should not be able to unilaterally determine whether it is complying with the Statement and Account Clause...On June 8, 2009, the US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, found in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. that campaign expenditures made in support of West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Caperton, a case that inspired a best-selling novel and two editorials in the New York</description>
      <guid>http://jurist.org/sidebar/2013/04/joseph-marren-sa-caperton-part1.php</guid>
      <pubDate>2013-04-08T16:30:00-05:00</pubDate>
      <title>The Statement and Account Clause and Caperton: Part I</title>
      <link>http://jurist.org/sidebar/2013/04/joseph-marren-sa-caperton-part1.php</link>
      <author>Stephen Krug</author>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[JURIST Guest Columnist Joseph Marren of KStone Partners LLC says that, because no person is permitted to be a judge in their own case, Congress should not be able to unilaterally determine whether it is complying with the Statement and Account Clause...On June 8, 2009, the US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, found in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc. that campaign expenditures made in support of West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Caperton, a case that inspired a best-selling novel and two editorials in the New York]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <description>JURIST Guest Columnists Kambiz Behi of EnterInvest and Edsel Tupaz of Tupaz and Associates discuss the geopolitical issues Ukraine faces in trying to integrate itself in the European Union...The breakup of the Soviet Union placed Ukraine in a particular geopolitical situation vis-&#224;-vis the European Union (EU) and the new Russian Federation. Since the formation of an independent Ukraine in 1991, integration with the EU has been the nation's foreign policy priority as it strategically positions itself towards the West. While the objectives of this policy posture have not changed, it seems that Ukraine's motive for joining the EU is significantly</description>
      <guid>http://jurist.org/sidebar/2013/03/kambiz-behi-edsel-tupaz-ukraine-eu.php</guid>
      <pubDate>2013-03-21T16:15:00-05:00</pubDate>
      <title>Economic and Political Reforms: Ukraine and the European Union</title>
      <link>http://jurist.org/sidebar/2013/03/kambiz-behi-edsel-tupaz-ukraine-eu.php</link>
      <author>Michael Muha</author>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[JURIST Guest Columnists Kambiz Behi of EnterInvest and Edsel Tupaz of Tupaz and Associates discuss the geopolitical issues Ukraine faces in trying to integrate itself in the European Union...The breakup of the Soviet Union placed Ukraine in a particular geopolitical situation vis-&#224;-vis the European Union (EU) and the new Russian Federation. Since the formation of an independent Ukraine in 1991, integration with the EU has been the nation's foreign policy priority as it strategically positions itself towards the West. While the objectives of this policy posture have not changed, it seems that Ukraine's motive for joining the EU is significantly]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <description>JURIST Guest Columnist Joseph Marren of KStone Partners LLC says that the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants must seriously reconsider its decision to designate the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board as the "generally accepted accounting principles" standards setter for the federal government...Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissent in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, focused on corruption and incumbency protection:It is fair to say that "[t]he Framers were obsessed with corruption," which they understood to encompass the dependency of public officials on private interests. They discussed corruption "more often in the Constitutional Convention than factions, violence and instability."</description>
      <guid>http://jurist.org/sidebar/2013/03/joseph-marren-citizens-part4.php</guid>
      <pubDate>2013-03-13T11:40:00-05:00</pubDate>
      <title>The Statement and Account Clause and Citizens United: Part IV</title>
      <link>http://jurist.org/sidebar/2013/03/joseph-marren-citizens-part4.php</link>
      <author>Stephen Krug</author>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[JURIST Guest Columnist Joseph Marren of KStone Partners LLC says that the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants must seriously reconsider its decision to designate the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board as the "generally accepted accounting principles" standards setter for the federal government...Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissent in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, focused on corruption and incumbency protection:It is fair to say that "[t]he Framers were obsessed with corruption," which they understood to encompass the dependency of public officials on private interests. They discussed corruption "more often in the Constitutional Convention than factions, violence and instability."]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    
    <item>
      <description>JURIST Columnists Kambiz Behi of EnterInvest and Edsel Tupaz of Tupaz &amp; Associates examine the impact of the Russian Federation's Constitution, the structure of the Russian government and Russian President Vladimir Putin's current role...On January 1, 2013, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) came into effect, requiring foreign banks to identify and report on US citizens with accounts holding more than $50,000 in an effort to clamp down on tax evasion. US banks have regularly provided information about their customers domiciled in the US, but the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) now intends to create a system for collecting information</description>
      <guid>http://jurist.org/sidebar/2013/03/behi-tupaz-russian-deposits.php</guid>
      <pubDate>2013-03-07T12:55:00-05:00</pubDate>
      <title>FATCA: American Deposits in Russian Banks</title>
      <link>http://jurist.org/sidebar/2013/03/behi-tupaz-russian-deposits.php</link>
      <author>Stephanie Kogut</author>
      <content:encoded><![CDATA[JURIST Columnists Kambiz Behi of EnterInvest and Edsel Tupaz of Tupaz &amp; Associates examine the impact of the Russian Federation's Constitution, the structure of the Russian government and Russian President Vladimir Putin's current role...On January 1, 2013, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) came into effect, requiring foreign banks to identify and report on US citizens with accounts holding more than $50,000 in an effort to clamp down on tax evasion. US banks have regularly provided information about their customers domiciled in the US, but the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) now intends to create a system for collecting information]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    
  </channel>
</rss>