“I think that unfortunately the current administration has squandered a lot of trust in the executive branch. . . . It’s not just a party issue. Both parties have made extravagant claims of presidential power when they were in the White House, including some of our greatest presidents—Lincoln, Franklin Delano Roosevelt.” KATHLEEN M. SULLIVAN, Stanley Morrison Professor of Law and former dean, and director, Stanford Constitutional Law Center, as quoted in a July 29 Associated Press article, “Judicial Conference Considers Executive Powers.” Sullivan participated in a panel at the 2008 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference that discussed executive authority.

“Given the pivotal role of freedom of the press in the development and maintenance of a true democracy, the United States should not seize journalists like Jawed Ahmad merely because they are doing their jobs.” BARBARA OLSHANSKY ’85, Leah Kaplan Visiting Professor of Human Rights and director of the International Human Rights Clinic, in a June 5 Associated Press story, “Detained Journalist Sues Bush Administration,” about a Canadian journalist being held as an enemy combatant in Afghanistan. Olshansky and the clinic are representing the now freed journalist, Jawed Ahmad, in a lawsuit against the U.S. government.

“All the flavor’s been chewed out of that gum.” JORDAN ETH ’85, quoted in a May 28 article from The Recorder, “The SEC’s Next Big Things.” Eth commented on the anticipated end of the SEC’s stock option backdating investigations in the Bay Area.

“You’re now going to face lawsuits often brought after close elections by individuals who were denied the right to vote in circumstances where the litigation will have to be done quickly. We saw, for example, in the 2000 election what happened. And it’s entirely possible things like that will happen if it’s a close election this fall.” PAMELA S. KARLAN, Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and co-director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, on the April 29, 2008, broadcast of NPR’s Morning Edition, regarding the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Indiana’s voter ID law.

“The danger is that people’s lives can be changed in bad ways because of mistakes in the technology. . . . The danger for the science is that it gets a black eye because of this very high-profile use of neuroimaging that goes wrong.” HENRY T. “HANK” GREELY (BA ’74), Deane F. and Kate Edelman Johnson Professor of Law, and director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences, and the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics’ Program in Neuroethics, quoted in Scientific American. The August article, “Can fMRI Really Tell If You’re Lying?” discusses the implications of using functional magnetic resonance imaging as a lie detector.

“People are working hard and pursuing many avenues; in time, they will find routes that work. This is quite unlike the Kyoto process, which was marked by very rapid negotiations that produced agreements that looked good on paper, but didn’t really reflect what important governments, such as the U.S., could actually deliver.” DAVID VICTOR, professor of law, in The New York Times article, “Global Warming Talks Leave Few Concrete Goals,” published July 10. Victor discusses the G-8 conference on global warming, highlighting several barriers to progress.

“The day when the federal government can tell people the basis they’ve been put on the watch list is the day we can have more confidence in biometric identification.” MARC ROTENBERG ’87, commenting on vetting data for government watch lists in a July 6 Washington Post article, “Post-9/11 Dragnet Turns Up Surprises: Biometrics Link Foreign Detainees to Arrests in U.S.”

“Race will play to Obama’s advantage as well as to his disadvantage. . . . Anyone in this campaign will, in some senses, need to tread carefully to avoid an implication that an attack on Obama is racially tinged.” RICHARD THOMPSON FORD (BA ’88), George E. Osborne Professor of Law, in a June 5 Wall Street Journal article, “For Better or Worse, Race Likely to Play Major Role.”

“For non-law geeks, this won’t seem important but this is huge. . . . In non-technical terms, the Court has held that free licenses set conditions on the use of copyrighted work. When you violate the condition, the license disappears, meaning you’re simply a copyright infringer.” LAWRENCE LESSIG, C. Wendell and Edith M. Carlsmith Professor of Law, as quoted in a BBC News story, “Legal Milestone for Open Source.” The article, published August 14, reports on a recent U.S. federal appeals court ruling protecting the use of open source software.

“[Good] governance is a little bit like porn. . . . I can spot it when I see it, but it is hard to say what it is.” ROBERT M. DAINES, Pritzker Professor of Law and Business and co-director, Arthur and Toni Rembe Rock Center for Corporate Governance, referring to Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s famous comment about recognizing obscenity, in a July 7 Fortune article, “Who’s Watching the Watchdogs?” The story reports on a Rock Center study co-authored by Daines.

“Once solidly in power, Democrats are more likely to push the envelope in areas like the environment and health [rather than civil liberties].” LARRY KRAMER, Richard E. Lang Professor of Law and Dean, in a July 9 analysis piece, “Narrow Minded,” by The New Republic’s Jeffrey Rosen about Supreme Court Justice John Roberts.

“Think about record companies…They’ve all been in this position, and some have survived it and some have not. Apple completely reinvented [itself]. IBM did not. TiVo did not. Microsoft constantly reinvents itself. Google has sort of a one-hit, brilliant wonder and is now trying to look for lots of other revenue streams but really hasn’t, in my mind, succeeded. So I wish I could come up with what the iPod is for us.” KATHARINE WEYMOUTH ’92, as quoted in a July 15 Condé Nast Portfolio story, “The Last Media Tycoon,” about Weymouth’s new role as publisher of the Washington Post.

“If there’s one thing you can say about this Court, it is that it still sits on a knife’s edge.” JEFFREY L. FISHER, associate professor of law (teaching) and co-director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, as quoted in the Washington Post. The June 29 article, “A Win by McCain Could Push Split Court to Right,” discusses the possible future of the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The opinion was courageous. . . . It will secure his place in the history of the California Supreme Court. There were escape hatches he could have used, such as tossing the issue to the legislature, and he rejected them. He faced the question head on and answered it.” JANE SCHACTER, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law, commenting on California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George ’64 in The Daily Journal story, “How Will Marriage Ruling Affect Chief’s Legacy?” published May 19.