<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>IdeasCategory: Law &#124; Ideas &#124; TIME.com</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ideas.time.com</link>
	<description>Essential Insights. Great Debates. Informed Opinions.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 20:08:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='ideas.time.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://ideas.time.com/osd.xml" title="Ideas" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://ideas.time.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>The De-Gendering of Divorce: Wives Pay Ex-Husbands Alimony Too</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/16/the-de-gendering-of-divorce-wives-pay-ex-husbands-alimony-too/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/16/the-de-gendering-of-divorce-wives-pay-ex-husbands-alimony-too/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 13:30:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Liza Mundy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[breadwinners]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[spousal support]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women paying men]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=32510</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Not long ago, after giving a talk about the growing number of women who are breadwinners in their marriages, I was approached by an audience member who identified herself as a lawyer. She said that she was definitely seeing this trend in her practice — nearly 40% of working wives now outearn their husbands — and that while economic power is a good thing, overall, for women, it can have one negative outcome many don&#8217;t anticipate. Among her divorce clients, she said, more and more were women who found themselves ordered by a court to pay spousal support to ex-husbands. &#8221;And boy,&#8221; she said, &#8220;are they pissed.&#8221; (MORE: The End of Alimony: How American Divorces Are Changing) That these women are angry is to be expected: men don’t like paying alimony either, and writing a check every month has long been, for men, one of the prime impediments to postmarital bliss. But their reaction also suggests that women, while eager to benefit from progress and expanded opportunities, are not so willing to accept the more painful consequences of our success. What’s sauce for the gander is, alas, sauce for the goose. It may or may not make it easier on these check-writing ex-wives to know that they are part of a larger movement: the degendering of alimony and divorce, which is a natural outgrowth of the degendering of roles in marriage. Once upon a time, the point of alimony was clear: it recognized the essential deal underlying marriage back in the days of “separate spheres,” when it was a husband’s role to provide, and a wife’s role to stay home, raise the children, run the household and enable the husband to be hard-working and high-earning. The economist Gary Becker famously argued that this was how couples maximized their efficiency: dividing the labor enabled both to succeed in their respective spheres. When marriages fell apart, alimony provided legal and economic recognition of the fact that a wife had sacrificed her earning power to maximize that of her husband and enhance the welfare<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=32510&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/16/the-de-gendering-of-divorce-wives-pay-ex-husbands-alimony-too/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Society</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/life-style/society/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/72445764.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/72445764.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/72445764.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Britney Spears Divorce Papers</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>DOJ&#8217;s Dragnet on Leakers: The Apathy is Troubling, Especially Among Journalists</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/15/dojs-dragnet-on-leakers-the-apathy-is-troubling-especially-among-journalists/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/15/dojs-dragnet-on-leakers-the-apathy-is-troubling-especially-among-journalists/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 10:59:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul Campos</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[associated press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DOJ]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=32458</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The revelation that the Department of Justice has obtained the private phone records of dozens of Associated Press reporters highlights four features of contemporary life in America. First, the Obama administration, broadly speaking, (the White House is denying that President Obama himself knew anything about the DOJ dragnet) seems to be developing something of an obsession with pursuing leakers of confidential government information. Note that, unlike some prominent prior investigations, the AP matter doesn’t even involve government whistleblowers, but merely information about a successful operation to stop a terrorist attack — information that the AP, at the government’s request, did not publish immediately. (MORE: Joe Klein: Crossing a Line in the A.P. Leaks Probe) Although at this point claims that the administration’s behavior has been “Nixonian” remain absurd (for one thing, unlike Nixon’s DOJ, Obama’s Justice Department seems concerned about actually staying within the letter of the law), the White House’s policy of dedicating so many resources to uncovering even seemingly innocuous leakers is worrisome. Second, it’s not even theoretically possible to surpass the degree of Republican hypocrisy on this issue. Recall that many of those howling about the Obama administration’s (probably legal) investigation are the very same people who did nothing but cheer when the Bush administration, in the name of “national security,” pursued a program of warrantless wiretapping that trampled on federal law. First prize for sheer chutzpah regarding this matter goes to House committee chair Darrell Issa, who immediately issued a press release condemning the DOJ investigation, and calling for a congressional investigation, even though in 2007 Issa was one of just a handful of House members who voted against a bill that would have made investigations of this type illegal (the bill was successfully killed in the Senate by Issa’s  GOP colleagues). Although we won’t know for certain until more facts are revealed, it’s quite likely that the DOJ is correct when it asserts that rummaging through two months of office, home, and cellphone records of reporters on a fishing expedition for information regarding the confidential source of a<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=32458&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/15/dojs-dragnet-on-leakers-the-apathy-is-troubling-especially-among-journalists/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Law</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/law/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/ide-eric-holder-130514.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/ide-eric-holder-130514.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/ide-eric-holder-130514.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Attorney General Eric Holder attends a news conference at the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., on May 14, 2013.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is There a &#8216;Lawyer Bubble&#8217;?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/07/is-there-a-lawyer-bubble/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/07/is-there-a-lawyer-bubble/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 09:45:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Cities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business & Tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law school]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lawyer bubble]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steven Harper]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=32119</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new book by a former litigator at Kirkland &#38; Ellis, one of the nation&#8217;s largest law firms, has delivered a frisson to the already rattled legal profession. In The Lawyer Bubble: A Profession in Crisis, Steven J. Harper argues that legal jobs are disappearing not because of short-term economic fluctuations but because of powerful long-term trends. The word bubble is an overstatement — it is hard to believe that the legal profession will end in the sort of high-speed implosion that subprime mortgages did. But the legal profession is facing some fundamental changes, and Harper deserves credit for sounding the alarm. (MORE: Sonia Sotomayor Debate: Should Unhappy Lawyers Blame Themselves?) Harper begins his case with a basic and troubling set of facts: roughly 45,000 law students graduate each year with an average of more than $100,000 in debt — and only about half of them will find long-term, full-time jobs that require a legal degree. Even for graduates who get law jobs, he argues, the legal world is changing fast. Law firms that once prized professionalism and collegiality, he says, are increasingly operating like typical bean-counting businesses. And many law graduates are finding work only as &#8220;contract attorneys,&#8221; which often means doing document-review drudgery for low pay. The decline in the market for lawyers is being driven by an array of forces. For some time now, but particularly since the economic downturn of 2008, corporate clients have been less willing to sign off on hefty legal bills. They have increasingly been balking at the top hourly rates of $1,000 that some partners charge — and at costly expenses, ranging from air travel to sushi dinners to copying charges. And as a result of globalization, an increasing share of American legal work — particularly more by-the-numbers assignments, like document review — is being shipped overseas. Lawyers in India and other lower-wage markets are willing to do the work for a fraction of what American law firms would charge. Taking away even more of this work: newly sophisticated legal software that<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=32119&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/07/is-there-a-lawyer-bubble/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Law</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/law/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/155353638.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/155353638.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/155353638.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Law scales</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Viewpoint: Want Safer Drivers? Embrace, Don&#8217;t Ban, Technology</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/01/want-safer-drivers-embrace-dont-ban-technology/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/01/want-safer-drivers-embrace-dont-ban-technology/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 12:00:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brad Keywell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Cities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business & Tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gadgets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drivers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[driving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[driving technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drunk driving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Highway Traffic Safety Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[no phones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[texting while driving]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=31864</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The federal government’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration recently announced guidelines calling for automakers to put limits on the installation of electronic devices in new cars, including a provision that most Internet-linked applications must be disabled while the car is in motion. But if the goal is to prevent fatalities, these guidelines show some misguided priorities — and could prevent further innovation from addressing some deadly issues. Technology is the solution to dangerous driving, not the main culprit behind it. Let me be clear: I’m not advocating for texting while driving. I signed the No Phone Zone pledge, and think that people who text while driving are just plain stupid. But let’s look at the statistics to put things in perspective. In 2011, distracted driving caused about 10 percent of traffic deaths, or 3,331 fatalities. Drunk drivers led to the deaths of three times as many people. Not wearing a seatbelt caused more than half of all fatal injuries to passengers. (MORE: Will Self-Driving Cars Change the Rules of the Road?) “Distracted driving” is not even exclusively defined as car infotainment systems or mobile devices. It can be anything from looking at something outside to applying makeup to trying to deal with a rogue insect — all of which have higher odds of resulting in crashes than dialing or talking on a hand-held device, according to a 2010 NHSTSA-sponsored study. And while there were 64 more deaths in 2011 than in 2010 from distraction-related crashes, the number of people injured in such accidents dropped by about 29,000 in the same period. Contrary to the negative reputation that tech companies have for cranking out too many distracting gizmos, many startups are actually focusing on making driving easier and safer. Just look at the thousands of traffic apps that give you real-time updates for a smooth trip, including my favorite, Waze. Other companies are discouraging distracted driving by developing programs to keep drivers awake and alert — NoNap has an earpiece that sounds a buzzer if it senses your head starting to droop into sleep-mode, and<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=31864&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/05/01/want-safer-drivers-embrace-dont-ban-technology/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Law</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/law/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/driving.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/driving.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/driving.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Driving with technology</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Internet Privacy: A New Bill Finally Offers Protections</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/30/internet-privacy-a-new-bill-finally-offers-protections/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/30/internet-privacy-a-new-bill-finally-offers-protections/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 09:45:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business & Tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[internet privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[personal information]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Right to Know Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tech]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=31867</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It should not come as a surprise to anyone these days that Internet companies have &#8220;digital dossiers&#8221; on all of us — the websites we visit, the friends we&#8217;ve sent emails to, the photos we&#8217;re tagged in, the medical symptoms we&#8217;ve searched for. But there has never been any way for us to know just what these companies know about us — or who they&#8217;re selling our information to. But that could finally be about to change — in California, which is on the cutting edge of technology policy, and perhaps, eventually for the whole nation. A long-overdue bill in the California legislature, &#8220;The Right to Know Act,&#8221; would force companies such as Google and Facebook to reveal what personal information they have collected and how it&#8217;s being used. The public cares about Internet privacy — even though tech companies like to argue otherwise — and opinion polls show strong support for laws to protect it. In one national poll, respondents favored a law disclosing all information collected on users by a 69% to 29% margin. But this popular support for online privacy has not translated into strong legal protections — both because the public has not been good about demanding privacy laws and because industry has been very good at blocking them. (MORE: Will We Ever Get Strong Internet Privacy Rules?) The Right to Know Act has been getting a great deal of attention. Civil liberties organizations, privacy advocates and women&#8217;s groups have been urging the state legislature to pass the bill — and if the will of the people were the only consideration, it would seem destined to pass speedily. But powerful tech companies are lined up against the bill — and it&#8217;s looking like it will be a tough fight. Personal information has been called &#8220;the web&#8217;s new gold mine,&#8221; because it can be used to target personalized advertising to Internet users — a lucrative business — and it can be sold to an array of shadowy data brokers who have many ways of turning it into<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=31867&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/30/internet-privacy-a-new-bill-finally-offers-protections/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Law</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/law/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/internetprivacy.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/internetprivacy.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/internetprivacy.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Internet privacy</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Boston Bombing: Should Cameras Now Be Everywhere?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/22/the-boston-bombing-should-cameras-now-be-everywhere/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/22/the-boston-bombing-should-cameras-now-be-everywhere/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 09:45:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Cities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[War & Terrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bombing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boston marathon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dzhokhar Tsarnaev]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tamerlan Tsarnaev]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=31542</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After the death of Tamerlan Tsarnaev and the capture of his brother Dzhokhar, some lawmakers began calling for more public cameras of the sort that were so instrumental in their swift apprehension. Representative Peter King (R-N.Y.,) a member of the House Homeland Security and Intelligence committees, told MSNBC that video cameras in public locations are &#8220;a great law enforcement method&#8221; that &#8220;keeps us ahead of the terrorists who are constantly trying to kill us.&#8221; (MORE: Brother&#8217;s Keeper: Did Older Brother Lure Bombing Suspect into Plot?) It&#8217;s a safe bet that there will be more video cameras coming to cities across the United States. London, which was shaken by a subway bombing on July 7, 2007, now has upwards of one million surveillance cameras. So this is a good time to ask if we should put some limits on the government’s all-seeing eye. The answer should be yes. We should craft our laws to allow images of criminal suspects to be captured in public – but also to make sure that the government does not unduly infringe on the privacy rights of innocent citizens. (MORE: FBI Will Face Questions Over Past Probe of Suspects) The first thing to understand about surveillance video in public places is that there is already a lot of it going on – though it is impossible to know how much. Back in 2006, the New York Civil Liberties Union sent inspectors out to look for street-level surveillance cameras and found nearly 4,500 in Manhattan alone. There are, no doubt, many thousands more today in Manhattan, and countless more in cities and towns and shopping malls across the country. In addition to these government-installed cameras, there are street-facing security cams installed by office complexes, apartment buildings, and retail stores. In the Boston Marathon investigation, law enforcement relied in large part on surveillance video from a Lord &#38; Taylor department store that appeared to show someone dropping off a heavy bag at the bombing site. (Photos taken the old-fashioned way were also important.) (MORE: Bloody Visions: What Would the<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=31542&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/22/the-boston-bombing-should-cameras-now-be-everywhere/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Law</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/law/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/suspects1and2.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/suspects1and2.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/suspects1and2.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">This frame grab from a video released by the FBI on April 18, 2013, shows Tamerlan, front, in black cap, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, in white cap, back right, walking through the crowd before the explosions at the Boston Marathon in Boston, Mass., on April 15, 2013.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Banning the Term &#8216;Illegal Immigrant&#8217; Won&#8217;t Change the Stigma</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/09/viewpoint-banning-the-term-illegal-immigrant-wont-change-the-stigma/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/09/viewpoint-banning-the-term-illegal-immigrant-wont-change-the-stigma/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 09:45:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>John McWhorter</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[American Cities]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business & Tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Journalism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life & Style]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[affirmative action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[associated press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[illegal immigrant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[racial preferences]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[special education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[undocumented immigrant]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women's lib]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=30577</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week the Associated Press announced that it would ban the term illegal immigrant from its stylebook. They are among many organizations and immigration advocates of late who argue that the term is uncivil, or even defamatory. (MORE: Immigration Debate: The Problem with the Word &#8220;Illegal&#8221;) Whether there is a point in that or not – and quite a few, including immigrants, think there isn’t – the main problem here is a matter of how language works. The idea is that banning “illegal immigrant” will change how people think, that using the term undocumented immigrant will improve the public opinion of the people in question. But it won&#8217;t. The problem is that language dances much more lightly on thought than we often suppose, and in a battle between thought and language, thought has a way of winning out. Words’ meanings, even when crafted to bend away from opinion, drift back to where we didn’t want them to be, like a fly keeps landing on you after you swat it away. This has happened to previous attempts to expunge a term of its negative meaning. Consider affirmative action, now so conventional we rarely stop to parse what the actual words comprising it mean. “Affirming” what? What kind of “action”? The term was a magnificently artful and gracious construction of the 1960s, giving a constructive, positive air to an always controversial policy. Note, however, that political opponents soon came to associate the term with the same negative feelings they had about the policy it referred to, such that today it is uttered with scorn by many. Racial preferences was the chosen replacement – but now it is now as loaded as affirmative action was. (MORE: How Affirmative Action Backfires At Universities) Words cannot escape reality. A similar thing happened with welfare, a constructive euphemism compared to once common terms of disparagement such as the dole. Once again, though, surly associations long ago settled back down on the term. By now we have to think a bit to process that the original meaning of welfare, in<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=30577&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/09/viewpoint-banning-the-term-illegal-immigrant-wont-change-the-stigma/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Society</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/life-style/society/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/146397543.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/146397543.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/146397543.jpg?w=240" medium="image" />

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can North Carolina Declare an &#8220;Official&#8221; Religion?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/08/can-u-s-states-have-official-religions/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/08/can-u-s-states-have-official-religions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2013 09:45:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defense of religion act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[north carolina]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[state religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tennessee school voucher]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=30548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[North Carolina legislators made national headlines last week with a bit of high-profile religious extremism. They introduced a resolution declaring that the state has the right to declare an official religion – presumably Christianity. The bill also contended that states are “sovereign” and that federal courts cannot prevent states “from making laws respecting the establishment of religion.” The North Carolina bill—which appears to be dead for now—was one of two big church-state blow-ups last week. In Tennessee, legislators withdrew a school voucher bill that would have allowed parents to direct taxpayer money to private schools, including Christian academies. The reason they balked: it suddenly occurred to them that the bill would also allow parents to direct tax dollars to Islamic schools. (MORE: Where Are the Most Religious States in America in 2013?) State assaults on the separation of church and state are nothing new. What set the North Carolina bill apart, however, is that it was an aggressive attempt to change the constitutional landscape. It made an argument that conservative lawyers have been developing for some time: that the first amendment’s Establishment Clause does not apply to the states – and that, as a result, states are allowed to favor a particular religion in a way the federal government cannot. North Carolina’s “Rowan County, North Carolina Defense of Religion Act of 2013” came about as a response to a lawsuit by the ACLU. The civil liberties group charged that Rowan County was violating the first amendment by opening 97% of its meetings with Christian prayers. In 2011, a federal court ruled that another North Carolina’s county’s public prayers violated the first amendment. The North Carolina bill would have defended against the suit – and any other lawsuits alleging that the state was promoting a particular religion – in two ways. It would have declared that the Establishment Clause did not apply to the states. And it would have asserted that federal courts have no right to tell states what is and is not constitutional. (WATCH: Your Bill of Rights) The attempt<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=30548&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/04/08/can-u-s-states-have-official-religions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Religion</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/life-style/religion/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/151167234.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/151167234.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/151167234.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">A woman prays during a public prayer service at the Verizon Wireless Amphetheatre in Charlotte, N.C., Sept. 2, 2012.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will Prop 8 End Not With a Bang but a Legal Whimper?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/26/will-prop-8-end-not-with-a-bang-but-a-legal-wimper/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/26/will-prop-8-end-not-with-a-bang-but-a-legal-wimper/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:35:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense of Marriage Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DOMA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Prop 8]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Proposition 8]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[same-sex marraige]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=30187</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Justice Anthony Kennedy — widely viewed as the pivotal swing vote — got pulses racing early in today’s same-sex-marriage argument at the Supreme Court. There is “immediate legal injury” being done to 40,000 California children being raised by same-sex parents who are not allowed to marry, he insisted. These children “want their parents to have full recognition and full status,” he said — and “the voice of those children is important in this case.” Court watchers immediately flooded Twitter and live blogs with the news: after that “vivid” comment, it was suddenly looking like there might be five votes — Justice Kennedy and the court’s four liberals — for a sweeping pro-gay-marriage ruling. But before long, Justice Kennedy seemed to reverse direction, openly questioning whether the court had made a mistake in accepting the case at all. (MORE: Court Could Avoid Ruling on Gay Marriage) Today’s oral arguments — in a challenge to California’s Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage — took place under a glaring national spotlight. Television cameras and throngs of reporters descended on the Supreme Court. Crowds of ordinary citizens gathered out front to express their views and to try to influence the Justices, in some cases with wacky signs in tow. (Sample: “Gays have every right to be as miserable as I make my husband.”) For months now, there has been a growing expectation that the Supreme Court would use this case to issue a landmark constitutional ruling, resolving for the history books whether same-sex couples have a right to marry. But the Justices’ questions at oral argument suggested another possibility: that the Proposition 8 case may end not with a bang but with a hypertechnical legal whimper. It is always perilous trying to predict what the Supreme Court will do based on the Justices’ comments at oral argument, but it now may be that the likeliest outcome is a punt on the hard constitutional questions: the Justices may simply dismiss the case. That would most likely mean that a lower-court ruling invalidating Prop 8 would<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=30187&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/26/will-prop-8-end-not-with-a-bang-but-a-legal-wimper/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Law</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/law/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ide-gay-marriage-130326.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ide-gay-marriage-130326.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ide-gay-marriage-130326.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Supreme Court Hears Arguments On California&#039;s Prop 8 And Defense Of Marriage Act</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why the Supreme Court Is Likely to Rule for Gay Marriage</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/25/why-the-supreme-court-is-likely-to-rule-for-gay-marriage/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/25/why-the-supreme-court-is-likely-to-rule-for-gay-marriage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Mar 2013 09:45:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anthony Kennedy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense of Marriage Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DOMA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gay marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=30074</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Supreme Court hears arguments tomorrow in two historic cases about whether same-sex couples have the right to marry. It is always difficult to predict Supreme Court rulings, but there is good reason to expect some kind of victory for marriage equality. The main reason: Justice Anthony Kennedy, the man who is likely to cast the deciding vote. The court is considering challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, and Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that bans same-sex marriage in that state. These challenges are historic: though state and federal courts from Alaska to New Jersey have considered same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court has never heard a case about it. (MORE: Why Republicans Are Saying &#8220;I Do&#8221; to Gay Marriage) The Supreme Court is known for its sharp partisan divide. The four-Justice liberal bloc is likely to be sympathetic to gay marriage, while the four-Justice conservative camp is likely to be hostile — though how Chief Justice John Roberts will come out is far from certain. In the middle is the court’s usual swing Justice, Justice Kennedy, who has — surprisingly — been the court’s most steadfast supporter of gay rights. A Reagan appointee, Justice Kennedy is no liberal, as he has shown on issues from affirmative action to corporate campaign spending. But he has repeatedly sided with gay litigants before the court. In 1996, early in the gay-rights legal revolution, he wrote the majority opinion in Romer v. Evans, striking down a Colorado constitutional amendment that prevented localities from passing laws protecting gay people from discrimination. In 2003, he wrote the landmark ruling Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down Texas’ law against gay sex. (MORE: What Will Justice Kennedy Do?) It is not clear why Justice Kennedy — who has not been a particular friend of racial minorities in civil rights cases — has been so sympathetic to gay rights. One factor could be that, as a law professor told the Los Angeles Times, he is a “California Establishment Republican” who has traveled “in circles where<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=30074&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/25/why-the-supreme-court-is-likely-to-rule-for-gay-marriage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Society</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/life-style/society/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ide-marriage-130322-e1363974354389.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ide-marriage-130322-e1363974354389.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/ide-marriage-130322-e1363974354389.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">US-SAME-SEX-MARRIAGE</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Just How Bad Off Are Law School Graduates?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/11/just-how-bad-off-are-law-school-graduates/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/11/just-how-bad-off-are-law-school-graduates/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:30:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business & Tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Labor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[$25 an hour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[jobs for law school graduates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law school]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal profession]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=29481</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Arizona State University’s law school is attacking head on the growing problem of law school graduates — who are in the fifth year of a near-depression-level job market — not being able to find work. It plans to open its own nonprofit law firm, as the New York Times recently reported, with the goal of keeping 30 recent graduates off the unemployment rolls. Law schools have also been offering public interest fellowships to help recent graduates get a foothold in the legal market — and creating incubators to train solo practitioners. But all of this law-school work-making is raising some fundamental questions about whether there are broader forces at work that are permanently altering the legal profession. It may seem far off today, but it was not long ago that the good times were rolling for lawyers. In 2007, 91.2% of law school graduates got jobs and salaries were soaring. After the 2008 meltdown, the employment rate was far lower — and the quality of jobs a lot worse. In 2009, just 65.4% of law school graduates got jobs for which they needed to pass the bar. (MORE: Sonia Sotomayor Debate: Should Unhappy Lawyers Blame Themselves?) A grim sport has emerged of exchanging stories about just how bad things are. Many lawyers are stuck doing tedious, document-intensive contract work for as little as $25 an hour — not the worst job in the world, certainly, but not what many of them envisioned when they spent three years of their lives and $150,000 to get a law degree. And there are plenty of worse jobs.  “Above the Law,” a website that follows the grim legal market closely, reported one listing on Boston College Law School’s job site that offered an annual salary of just $10,000 which “Above the Law” insisted the firm “had to have known” was “below minimum wage.” And it gets worse still. There are a surprising number of job postings for lawyers that offer no salary at all, including government law jobs. That raises the question — as one headline put it — “Would<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=29481&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/11/just-how-bad-off-are-law-school-graduates/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Case Study</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/case-study/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/wp126314316.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/wp126314316.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/wp126314316.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Law School Column</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is This the End for the Core of the Voting Rights Act?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/27/is-this-the-end-for-the-core-of-the-voting-rights-act/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/27/is-this-the-end-for-the-core-of-the-voting-rights-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 23:10:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voting Rights Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=28741</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At the Supreme Court argument Wednesday on the Voting Rights Act, Justice Anthony Kennedy – likely the deciding vote – had two potentially devastating words for those who want to see the landmark voting rights law upheld: “Times change.” It can be perilous to try to predict what the court will do based on the questions the Justices ask at oral argument. But those questions suggest that there may well be five votes — a majority — for striking down key parts of the act. The Voting Rights Act was enacted in 1965 to ensure that black voters in the Jim Crow South were allowed to cast ballots. In the 48 years since, it has been a tool for the federal government to prevent states from racial gerrymandering — drawing district lines to stop minorities from getting elected — and election-day obstructions, like moving polling places at the last minute in minority neighborhoods. (MORE: Will the Supreme Court Open the Door to Voter Discrimination?) Conservatives have long been at war with the Voting Rights Act. They argue that it gives an unfair preference to minority voters, infringes on states’ rights, and is an abuse of power by Congress. The case the court is considering, Shelby County v. Holder, challenges a key part of the act: section 5, which requires all or part of 16 states to “pre-clear” changes with the Justice Department to ensure that they do not unfairly burden minority voters. Going into the argument, the court’s four most conservative Justices were all-but-certain votes against section 5, and that seems just as true now. At the argument, Chief Justice John Roberts — who has expressed skepticism about the Voting Rights Act for decades — took up the line being pushed by Shelby County, Alabama: that the act unfairly puts a heavier burden on southern states (even though it also covers some northern jurisdictions). Chief Justice Roberts asked: “Is it the government’s submission that the citizens in the South are more racist than the citizens in the North?” Justice Antonin Scalia —<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=28741&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/27/is-this-the-end-for-the-core-of-the-voting-rights-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Law</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/law/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ide-voting-rights-court-130227.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ide-voting-rights-court-130227.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/ide-voting-rights-court-130227.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">People stand outside the Supreme Court before the start of a rally during arguments in the Shelby County, Ala., v. Holder case in Washington.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/3cb61b88047e46fa55ea7dd6bf87ec1c?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timeadmin</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will the Supreme Court Open the Door to Voter Discrimination?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/25/will-the-supreme-court-open-the-door-to-voter-discrimination/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/25/will-the-supreme-court-open-the-door-to-voter-discrimination/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 10:44:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voter discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voter ID]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[votes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voting]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=28607</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Our election system is a mess. Voters wait more than seven hours to vote in some places and minority voters wait twice as long on average as whites. In some states, voter ID laws are so tough that elderly nuns are turned away at the polls because they lack drivers’ licenses or other official ID. In another era, the Supreme Court might have stepped up and done something to fix our democracy. But this Supreme Court left the voters standing in the sun for hours and the nuns to fend for themselves. Other than vindicating the right of corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections in 2010&#8242;s Citizens United v. FEC, the court has not had a lot to say about how elections should be run. Now, the Supreme Court appears to be poised to make a major change in American democracy by gutting the Voting Rights Act. The court will hear arguments Wednesday in Shelby County v. Holder, which challenges section 5 of the Act – a key provision that allows the Justice Department to block state election practices that make it difficult for minorities to vote. (PHOTOS: The Halls of Democracy: Places of Civic Responsibility) It is hard to believe the court is really considering striking down section 5. The Voting Rights Act has been a revered part of American law since 1965, when Congress passed it to end the systematic disenfranchisement of blacks in the South. For decades, it enjoyed bipartisan support. The last two laws reauthorizing it were signed by Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The Supreme Court has upheld it four times. Section 5 contains the Act’s famous “pre-clearance” requirement. Jurisdictions in all or part of 16 states – most, though not all, in the South – have to “pre-clear” changes in voting procedures with the federal government. The Justice Department must determine that the proposed changes will not deny or abridge the voting rights of minorities. Section 5 protects voters – including, indirectly, white voters – from all sorts of schemes.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=28607&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/25/will-the-supreme-court-open-the-door-to-voter-discrimination/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Case Study</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/case-study/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/155655226-copy.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/155655226-copy.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/155655226-copy.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">U.S. Presidential Election Day Voting And Results Coverage</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://0.gravatar.com/avatar/3cb61b88047e46fa55ea7dd6bf87ec1c?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timeadmin</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is It a Crime to Plant a Seed?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/18/is-it-a-crime-to-plant-a-seed/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/18/is-it-a-crime-to-plant-a-seed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:45:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business & Tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health & Science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Retail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[monsanto]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[roundup ready]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[seed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vernon "Hugh" Bowman]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=28441</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Vernon Hugh Bowman, a 75-year-old farmer from rural Indiana, did something that got him sued. He planted soybean seeds. But Monsanto, the ag giant, insists it has a patent on the kind of genetically modified seeds Bowman used — and that the patent continues to all of the progeny of those seeds. Have we really gotten to the point that planting a seed can lead to a high-stakes Supreme Court patent lawsuit? We have, and that case is Bowman v. Monsanto, which is being argued on Tuesday. Monsanto’s critics have assailed the company for its “ruthless legal battles against small farmers,” and they are hoping this will be the case that puts it in its place. They are also hoping the court’s ruling will rein in patent law, which is increasingly being used to claim new life forms as private property. (MORE: Will States Lead the Way to Legalizing Marijuana?) Monsanto and its supporters, not surprisingly, see the case very differently. They argue that when a company like Monsanto goes to great expense to create a valuable new genetically modified seed, it must be able to protect its property interests. If farmers like Bowman are able to use these seeds without paying the designated fee, they argue, it will remove the incentives for companies like Monsanto to innovate. Bowman is a character out of a populist movie — a modern-day Mr. Smith Goes to the Supreme Court. If he had bought the genetically modified Roundup Ready seeds directly from Monsanto, he would have been required to pay the company’s technology fee. But Bowman bought his seeds from a grain elevator, which sold him a mix usually used for livestock feed — a mix that happened to include seeds that were progeny of Monsanto’s patented Roundup Ready. Bowman argued that these progeny seeds were not covered by Monsanto’s patent, so he had no duty to pay the company a fee. Monsanto accused Bowman of patent infringement and won a $84,456 damage award. Rather than pay up or work out a settlement, Bowman<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=28441&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/18/is-it-a-crime-to-plant-a-seed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Retail</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/business-tech/retail/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/seeds.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/seeds.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/seeds.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Planting seeds</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Innocent Men Make False Confessions</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/11/why-innocent-men-make-false-confessions/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/11/why-innocent-men-make-false-confessions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:35:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Central Park Five]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Daniel Taylor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[false confessions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Northwestern University]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Saul Kassin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[West Memphis Three]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[West of Memphis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wrongful convictions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=28275</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Correction Appended: Feb. 12, 2013 In 1995, Daniel Taylor was convicted of a double murder in Chicago in what seemed to be a clear-cut case: he gave police a signed confession. But now his supporters — including Northwestern University’s Center on Wrongful Convictions and a Chicago Tribune columnist — are insisting he is innocent. They are asking that Taylor, who is serving life in prison without parole, be freed. They have a compelling argument: there is strong evidence that Taylor was actually in police custody when the 1992 murders took place. He had been picked up on a disorderly conduct charge, it seems, and was being held in a North Side jail — and he was only released on bond two hours after the killings. But what about his confession? Why would an innocent man sign a statement saying he had committed murder? As it turns out, Taylor&#8217;s case is a fairly typical story: a frightened young person manipulated by police into making statements whose significance he did not understand. If the past few years have taught us anything it&#8217;s that false confessions are not only possible, but they also happen more often than anyone would think. (VIDEO: Barry Scheck, Justice Seeker) False confessions play a major role in two recent documentaries about wrongful convictions. West of Memphis examines the case of three young Arkansas men who were locked up for the horrific 1993 murders of three 8-year-old boys. Perhaps the most powerful piece of the prosecution’s case was a confession by Jessie Misskelley describing in graphic detail how he and his two co-defendants beat, raped and mutilated the boys. The documentary, however, showed how the police could — after hours of intense interrogation, heavy with leading questions — manipulate and extract a false story from Misskelley, an unsophisticated young man with a low IQ. The Central Park Five explores the notorious 1989 case in which five black and Hispanic teenagers were convicted of raping and beating a 28-year-old white jogger in Central Park. The men were found guilty of what New<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=28275&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/11/why-innocent-men-make-false-confessions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Case Study</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/case-study/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/confession.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/confession.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/confession.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Central Park Five</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Viewpoint: What Everyone&#8217;s Getting Wrong About Special-Ed Sports</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/29/viewpoint-what-everyones-getting-wrong-about-special-ed-sports/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/29/viewpoint-what-everyones-getting-wrong-about-special-ed-sports/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 12:45:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Andrew J. Rotherham</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Children]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[School of Thought]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corollary teams]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[department of education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disabled]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[murderball]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[office for civil rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rehabilitation act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[special education]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[title ix]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wheelchair basketball]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=27857</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When I heard last week that the U.S. Department of Education was releasing new guidelines about what schools must do to provide access to school sports for disabled students, I was in Charlottesville, Va., watching the University of Virginia’s women’s basketball team throttle Boston College. And in a nice bit of coincidence, the halftime show for that game was an exhibition match of adult wheelchair basketball. Conservative pundits fearing federal overreach claim that President Obama is inventing a right to wheelchair basketball, that he&#8217;s forcing schools to start up such teams. He’s not. But the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights is doing something important, and hopefully it will prod more schools to give more students a way to participate in sports. (MORE: For Disabled Athletes, A Right To Compete in School?) Here’s the back story: In 1973 Congress passed the Rehabilitation Act, which protects the rights of disabled students in schools and is the underpinning of today’s special-education programs. Included in its many provisions is one that requires equal opportunity for participation in extracurricular activities. Schools haven’t always met that obligation, and one reason for this, according to a 2010 report by the Government Accountability Office, is that administrators are confused about what the guidelines expect schools and districts to do. The report also found that special-education students were less likely to participate in sports. (This may seem obvious on its face, but it’s important to note that most students in special education do not have severe physical or mental challenges.) So now, some two years later — this is the government, after all — the Education Department is providing some clarity. In other words, these are not new requirements or mandates, but rather an explanation of existing law and policy. (MORE: Viewpoint: The Presidential Election Compromised Education Reform) Most of it is common sense. Sports teams are competitive entrance activities, and skill matters most in decisions about who gets to play; nothing in the law changes that. But the guidance clarifies that schools can — and should —<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=27857&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/29/viewpoint-what-everyones-getting-wrong-about-special-ed-sports/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>School of Thought</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/school-of-thought/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/wheelchairbasketball.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/wheelchairbasketball.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/wheelchairbasketball.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">wheelchairbasketball</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sonia Sotomayor Debate: Should Unhappy Lawyers Blame Themselves?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/28/sonia-sotomayor-debate-should-unhappy-lawyers-blame-themselves/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/28/sonia-sotomayor-debate-should-unhappy-lawyers-blame-themselves/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:37:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul Campos</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Arts & Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[law school]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawyers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sonia Sotomayor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[student loans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supreme court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=27781</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In an interview with Oprah for her memoir My Beloved Life, U.S. Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor said she believes that “being a lawyer is one of the best jobs in the whole wide world, because every lawyer, no matter whom they represent, is trying to help someone &#8230; To me, lawyering is the height of service — and being involved in this profession is a gift. Any lawyer who is unhappy should go back to square one and start again.” I hear judges and law professors say similar things all the time. What such people have in common is that they’re not practicing law. Sotomayor, who did practice law for a dozen years before becoming a federal judge, should know better, and at one time did: in a televised interview in 1986, two years after she left the Manhattan district attorney’s office to join a law firm, she said that “the vast majority of lawyering is drudgery work. It’s sitting in a library; it’s banging out a brief; it’s talking to clients for endless hours, not necessarily on interesting topics.” (MORE: From the Archive: Sonia Sotomayor: A Justice Like No Other) Sotomayor&#8217;s memoir, My Beloved Life, is largely bereft of such insights, although she does reveal that she left her job at the Manhattan district attorney’s office, in part, because she found herself “hardened” by “a certain sense of futility” about her work, and by the effects a case load she describes as “crushing” was having on her personal life. But twenty years as a federal judge seem to have detached Sotomayor from any sense of the increasingly severe problems faced by so many members of the legal profession. For young law graduates, especially, Sotomayor’s words about service and happiness are likely to ring hollow. (MORE: Why We Still Need Affirmative Action) Here is part of a letter I received this fall from a “lucky” law graduate — lucky in that, unlike half of all recent law graduates, she actually has a legal job. The writer graduated six years ago with<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=27781&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/28/sonia-sotomayor-debate-should-unhappy-lawyers-blame-themselves/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Law</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/law/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/sotomayor.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/sotomayor.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/sotomayor.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Sonia Sotomayor</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Viewpoint: The Department of Defense Took Too Long on Women in Combat</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/25/viewpoint-the-department-of-defense-took-too-long-on-women-in-combat/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/25/viewpoint-the-department-of-defense-took-too-long-on-women-in-combat/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2013 12:43:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Rajiv Srinivasan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Society]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Leon Panetta]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women in combat]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=27751</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that the military would be lifting the policy preventing women from filling billets in units tasked with direct combat. As an Afghanistan veteran, I found myself particularly apathetic to the news—those of us who have served know this is an anti-climactic adjustment that comes so late that it shows a tremendous lag in upper-level decision making. The military used to be at the forefront of progress—the U.S. Armed forces were racially integrated five years before the landmark court decision Brown v Board of Education—but in the last two decades, I wonder if policy is influencing front lines or simply following suit decades later? (MORE: Banning Women From Combat is Unconstitutional) A veteran will attest to the 99.5 percent of Americans who have not deployed to combat that bullets and bombs don’t check our bio-data before they pierce our vehicles. Our insurgent enemy never agreed to let the medical helicopters and finance units have clear passage, and only fight the combat arms units on the ground. Rather, our enemy is ingenious and resourceful. Knowing well that going head-to-head with the American infantry is a losing game for pretty much anyone, our enemy instead goes for the jugular of our support system: logistics, food, fuel, supplies, medical attention, and even our care packages. The units charges with these functions are designed to sustain a defensive posture, but in today&#8217;s environment, they are forced to operate offensively and in direct combat as a means of survival. These are also units led by and filled with women warriors. The decision to lift the ban was absolutely the right thing to do, but what concerns me, as a veteran with many loved ones still in the force, is how long it took us to get there. It bothers me that we had to wait more than a decade—beginning from a time when we had women leading units into the invasion of Iraq—to acknowledge the gender-agnostic battlefield with official policy. It bothers me that, only after ten years of<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=27751&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/25/viewpoint-the-department-of-defense-took-too-long-on-women-in-combat/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>U.S.</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/516751105-e1359056710650.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/516751105-e1359056710650.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/516751105-e1359056710650.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Panetta</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Was Aaron Swartz Really &#8216;Killed by the Government&#8217;?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/18/was-aaron-swartz-really-killed-by-the-government/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/18/was-aaron-swartz-really-killed-by-the-government/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:45:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business & Tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aaron swartz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[aaron's law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carmen ortiz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[darrell issa]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[felony charges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[lawrence lessig]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plea bargain]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=27539</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At the funeral of Aaron Swartz, the 26-year-old Internet freedom crusader, Swartz’s father had a blunt message. Aaron — who committed suicide last week while being prosecuted for hacking — “was killed by the government,” he declared. The elder Swartz fanned the flames of a growing debate: Did federal prosecutors go too far in pursuing Swartz on serious felony charges, and are they in part responsible for his death? (MORE: Aaron Swartz, Tech Prodigy and Internet Activist, Is Dead at 26) Swartz, a computer prodigy, helped create Reddit but was perhaps best known as a freedom-of-information activist. In addition to campaigning against overly punitive copyright laws, he allegedly linked his laptop to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s computer system to download millions of articles from JSTOR, a paid-subscription database of academic articles. (MIT was a subscriber to JSTOR, but Swartz was not an authorized user.) Federal prosecutors in Boston charged Swartz with 13 felony counts that could have sent him to prison for more than 30 years. Since Swartz’s death — he was found hanged in his home in Brooklyn — his family, friends and allies in the information-freedom movement have put much of the blame on federal prosecutors. Swartz’s family said in a statement on an online memorial site that his death is “the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach.” In particular, they charge that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Massachusetts contributed to Swartz’s death by choosing to pursue “a harsh array of charges &#8230; to punish an alleged crime that had no victims.” (MORE: Aaron Swartz&#8217;s Suicide Prompts MIT Soul-Searching) U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz pushed back Wednesday, saying that her prosecutors have a duty of “protecting the use of computers and the Internet” and that they had never intended to see the maximum sentence of 30 years given. In fact, they had offered Swartz a plea-bargain deal that would have put him in prison for only a few months — a deal he had rejected. In a blog post titled “Prosecutor as Bully,”<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=27539&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/18/was-aaron-swartz-really-killed-by-the-government/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Law</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/law/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/ide-aaron-swartz-0117.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/ide-aaron-swartz-0117.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/ide-aaron-swartz-0117.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">image: Aaron Swartz in Miami, Jan. 30, 2009.</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Will Self-Driving Cars Change the Rules of the Road?</title>
		<link>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/14/will-self-driving-cars-change-the-rules-of-the-road/</link>
		<comments>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/14/will-self-driving-cars-change-the-rules-of-the-road/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:43:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adam Cohen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Study]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[self-driving cars]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sergey Brin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[traffic accidents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[traffic laws]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ideas.time.com/?p=27377</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Not long ago, self-driving cars seemed like science fiction. But Google is now operating so-called autonomous cars in California and Nevada, and last week at the annual Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, Toyota and Audi unveiled prototypes for self-driving cars to sell to ordinary car buyers. (Google co-founder Sergey Brin said last year he expects his company to have them ready for the general public within five years.) In a report backing self-driving cars, the consulting firm KPMG and the Center for Automotive Research recently predicted that driving is “on the brink of a new technological revolution.” (MORE: Self-Driving Cars Available by 2019, Report Says) But as the momentum for self-driving cars grows, one question is getting little attention: Should they even be legal? And if they are, how will the laws of driving have to adapt? All our rules about driving — from who pays for a speeding ticket to who is liable for a crash — are based on having a human behind the wheel. That is going to have to change. There are some compelling reasons to support self-driving cars. Regular cars are inefficient: the average commuter spends 250 hours a year behind the wheel. They are dangerous. Car crashes are a leading cause of death for Americans ages 4 to 34 and cost some $300 billion a year. Google and other supporters believe that self-driving cars can make driving more efficient and safer by eliminating distracted driving and other human error. Google&#8217;s self-driving cars have cameras on the top to look around them and computers to do the driving. Their safety record is impressive so far. In the first 300,000 miles, Google reported that its cars had not had a single accident. Last August, one got into a minor fender bender, but Google said it occurred while someone was manually driving it. After heavy lobbying and campaign contributions, Google persuaded California and Nevada to enact laws legalizing self-driving cars. The California law breezed through the state legislature — it passed 37-0 in the senate and 74-2 in the assembly —<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=ideas.time.com&#038;blog=27622548&#038;post=27377&#038;subd=timeopinions&#038;ref=&#038;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://ideas.time.com/2013/01/14/will-self-driving-cars-change-the-rules-of-the-road/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	<primary_category>Case Study</primary_category><primary_category_link>http://ideas.time.com/category/u-s/case-study/</primary_category_link><featured_image>http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/cars.jpg?w=240</featured_image>
		<media:thumbnail url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/cars.jpg?w=240" />
		<media:content url="http://timeopinions.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/cars.jpg?w=240" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Image: Google&#039;s self-driving car</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/eaeda6e65b66ef6d8071a508ca25bfca?s=96&#38;d=http%3A%2F%2Fs0.wp.com%2Fi%2Fmu.gif&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">timecontributor</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>