The Supreme Court has spoken

This morning, the Supreme Court denied a writ of certiorari to Tuck-It-Away and the Singhs, the last parties opposing the Manhattanville expansion scheme, meaning that they will not be considering the case (official court order list from 12/13 here). This formally ends any possible legal opposition to New York State’s use of eminent domain, and that construction will proceed on the new campus. The Blue & White interviewed Nick Sprayregen, owner of Tuck-It-Away, over the summer, while he was in the process of appealing to the Supreme Court. He said then that he thought his building would be demolished within a year of the court’s decision. (Spec)

In other news from the Expansion Bureau, Wal-Mart’s third attempt to make a move into New York City has been delayed until January, when a room large enough can be found to accommodate all the local business owners who want a say in the decision. (NYTimes)

Forget WikiLeaks, Gawker was hacked yesterday. (Gothamist)

Really! WikiLeaks is soon to be supplanted by Openleaks, a site designed by Julian Assange’s second-in-command. (BBC)

Regarding a different kind of storytelling, Tovah Klein, the head of Barnard’s Center for Toddler Development argues that story time is for fun, not for impressing your friends at dinner parties with your baby’s mad reading skills. In Defense of Kids! (Huffington Post)

Photo via Wikimedia

Other than the economy and the presidential candidates and of course, IvyGate’s triumphant return, the big news story of the week was the Supreme Court, which handed down a number of controversial decisions, from issues concerning the death penalty to the Second Amendment. For those of you want more of a judiciary fix, here are some weekend rentals from Film Rental Correspondent Brandon Hammer to satisfy your palate.  

The History Buffs: Inherit the Wind (1960) 

Based on the play of the same title, Inherit the Wind is the dramatized story of the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial, in which John Thomas Scopes was put on trial for teaching the theory of evolution. The case created such hype that it drew two of the most famous lawyers of the time, three-time presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan for the prosecution and Clarence Darrow for the defense. Though all of the names are changed (Bryan becomes Matthew Harrison Brady while Darrow is changed to Drummond), the story is nonetheless an interesting examination of the conflict between those who have very different views of the governing principles of the United States. Moreover, despite the film’s age, its subject matter — from what it is acceptable to teach in school, to how two friends can maintain their relationship amid social and political competition, to the battle between urban and rural — is still quite relevant.

Read more…

Did you know that John G. Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was at the Law School a few days ago judging the final round of the Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court Competition? Neither did we.

But he was! Roberts and three other appeals court judges heard two cases presented by law students. The Times calls Roberts an “acknowledged master” of appellate argument, which Roberts explains as when “the judges are debating among themselves and just using the lawyers as a backboard. One of the real challenges for lawyers is to get involved in that debate.” (Bwog’s still fuzzy on the details.)

After Roberts finished critiquing the students, the other judges took their turn critiquing Roberts. “Two of the appeals court judges said the Supreme Court might work a little harder to establish clear principles.”

The article is a bit technical and hard to follow if you’re not law school-bound, though the law school’s own recap is not as jargony and features lots of photos. Imagine all this, right under our undergraduate noses.