Associate Dean Mark J. Sundahl was quoted in the New York Times on Saturday, September 24, regarding tort liability, under international law, for potential damage caused by NASA’s falling satellite.  The article, Satellite Falls to Earth, but We Know Not Where, by Kenneth Chang, addresses the worldwide concern about where the satellite might land and what damage would occur upon its landing.  According to Sundahl, under international treaties, NASA would have paid compensation for damage or injuries caused in other countries, but if the satellite caused damage in the a United States territory, “the harmed U.S. person would have no recourse under international law, but would have to sue the U.S. government under the Federal Tort Claims Act.”

You may read the full text at http://www2.law.csuohio.edu/newsevents/images/Satellite_NYTimes.com.pdf

Professor Lolita Buckner Inniss participated in the Around Noon Book Club on the local National Public Radio station, WCPN, on Monday, September 19th.  The topic of discussion was the 20th century classic Their Eyes Were Watcing God by Zora Neale Hurston. Joining Professor Inniss in the panel discussion, led by WCPN’s Dee Perry, were CWRU’s Rhonda Williams and Laurel School’s Ann Klotz.  You may listen to the podcast here: http://www.ideastream.org/an/entry/42414

Professor David Forte published a Letter to the Editor in First Things:  A Monthly Journal of Religion and Public Life.  In the letter, published in response to the article “Religion, Reason, and Same-Sex Marriage,” by Matthew J. Franck (First Things, May 2011), Forte praised Dr. Franck’s defense of the moral legitimacy of those argue against same-sex marriage.  He disagrees, however, with Franck’s conclusion that the tactics of same-sex marriage advocates will be self-defeating.  He writes that contrary to Franck’s position that opponents of same-sex marriage will win in the end because the majority of Americans agree with them, the sentiments of the majority may be changing.  As evidence for this assertion Forte notes that the popularity of marriage in the general population has decreased dramatically, divorce rates are up, and people who divorce often do not seek to remarry as they used to.  Instead, they tend to co-habit with a new partner.  As such, they see marriage as a lifestyle choice.  Because they are co-habiting themselves, he argues, people do not seem to see same-sex marriage as a threat to the lifestyle they are trying to build.  In fact, he writes that same-sex marriage advocates may attempt to take the moral high ground, arguing that in a world where many are choosing less committed relationships, same-sex marriage advocates are arguing for the most committed relationship.  Therefore, they can argue that it is they who hold marriage in the highest esteem.  Forte concludes, “The attack on marriage, therefore, is deontological, political, and social. On the one hand, some, knowing that the strongest argument for marriage arises out of natural law, wish to “de-nature” marriage, as one visiting scholar stated at my university. The political attack on marriage comes through the courts, as we have seen. But the social attack comes from the new habits and sensibilities of the American people, who when asked, speak of holding marriage in high esteem, but when put to the test of practice, are more and more preferring forms of less committed relationships.”

You may read the full text of the letter at
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=17&sid=827f540d-015b-41aa-be2f-6904cf3ac306%40sessionmgr11&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=hlh&AN=64087720.

Professor Phyllis Crocker, who served C|M|LAW as Interim Dean for the past 18 months, has become quickly reengaged in her discipline.  Crocker was recently quoted in an AP news article praising Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor’s announcement that she will be forming a committee to  review the state’s death penalty law.  O’Connor made clear in her announcement that the committee will not debate the law itself, which was enacted 30 years ago.  Instead, it will be charged with making sure the current system is administered fairly, efficiently and in the most “judicious manner possible.”   O’Connor pledged to convene a 20-member committee with broad experience on this subject to produce a fair, impartial, and balanced analysis. The committee will consist of judges, prosecuting attorneys, criminal defense lawyers, lawmakers and academic experts.  It will also be charged with reviewing a 2007 ABA-sponsored comprehensive study of Ohio’s death penalty statute.  Professor Crocker was well suited to comment on this announcement.  She served as Chair of the 10-person committee that produced the ABA study of Ohio’s death penalty law in 2007.  Crocker was pleased with O’Connor’s announcement, saying “[a] thorough examination of our state’s death penalty system was one of the goals of the 2007 ABA Death Penalty Report.”

To read the full story, click here: http://www.chron.com/news/article/Ohio-s-top-judge-calls-for-death-penalty-review-2161796.php