At the BU Law commencement on May 19, the featured speaker will be one of the most prominent lawyers in the United States, Donald B. Verrilli, Jr.

Verrilli has served as the Solicitor General of the United States since June 2011. He replaced Justice Elena Kagan at OSG. Previously, he was Deputy Counsel to President Obama and as an Associate Deputy Attorney General in the U.S. Department of Justice. Prior to his government service, he practiced law at Jenner & Block for over 20 years.

Some of the Verrilli’s work can be viewed at government web sites, in the numerous briefs and oral arguments in which he has represented the U.S. government before the Supreme Court.  He is also the author of many scholarly articles focusing on Supreme Court. C-SPAN provides video clips that highlight the audio recording of Verrilli’s oral arguments before the Court and his frequent participation at panel discussions on legal issues.

A Justice’s retirement does not bring an end to dissenting opinions. Sandra Day O’Connor’s recently published book (Out of Order: Stories From the History of the Supreme Court) has received tough criticism from reviewers, especially from those who expected inside perspective about cases and issues where O’Connor played a key role during her years on the Supreme Court.

For example, Adam Liptak, who covers SCOTUS for The New York Times, was dismissive in his review:

She has a lot to say. But, the provocative title of her new book notwithstanding, she is not saying it here. Instead, she has delivered a disjointed collection of anodyne anecdotes and bar-association bromides about the history of the Supreme Court. “Out of Order” is a gift shop bauble, and its title might as well refer to how disorganized and meandering it is.

In a letter published in Sunday’s NYT Book Review, former Rep. Barney Frank, noting O’Connor’s comments referencing the Court’s shift to the right since her retirement, observes:

[T]hese reversals of her jurisprudence were entirely predictable results of her decision to time her resignation so that George W. Bush could replace her. After the 2000 election she said that because there was a Republican president, she could retire. Had O’Connor retired during the Clinton presidency, her successor would almost certainly have supported her decisions on campaign funding, abortion and affirmative action.

What she is expressing is an example of “resignation remorse,” and she should not be surprised by what she enabled.

I was totally bummed when I saw this pop up:

not so much because I love Google Reader, but because I know I will have to move all of my RSS feeds elsewhere.  So what are our options?

1. NewsBlur

This is a free reader (if you’re following less than 64 feeds, otherwise you need to upgrade to the premium account @ $24/year).  It is compatible with iPad, iPhone, and Android.

2. Feedly

This is a truly free reader, compatible with iOS and Android, and it boasts a “seamless transition” from Google Reader.  It allows you to aggregate not only RSS feeds, but also content from Youtube channels, Tumblr blogs, and podcasts.  Individuals who have made the switch like this better than Google Reader, finding the interface cleaner and easier to use.  They also note that it will remember the items you starred in Google Reader post-migration.

Feedly is not perfect though.  Users complain that it’s difficult to navigate on the Android app, and it doesn’t have a basic text-only list view.  Users who like to scroll through content are also disappointed; Feedly requires more clicks to access information than Google Reader.  If you are into the visually appealing magazine formats, you’ll love Feedly, but if you want “just the facts,” you may be disappointed.

3. The Old Reader

If you want a very basic reader, this one is for you.  It was modeled after an older version of Google Reader.  Although it does not have a mobile app, it will allow you to import feeds directly from Google Reader.

4. Totally.Me

This aggregator will pull together not only the blogs you’re following, but also updates from your social media networks.

5. NetVibes

NetVibes is also more than just an RSS feed aggregator; the dashboard allows you to also monitor your social media, check your email, and create a to-do list.  The other popular feature of NetVibes is that you can personalize your dashboard with custom layout designs.  You can obtain a personal dashboard (compatible with both iOS and Android) for free, and there is a method to import your Google Reader.  However, reviewers have mentioned that some of their subscriptions did not import properly.

These are just a few Google Reader alternatives.  I’m going to try Feedly, but they all look like great applications.  I hope you find the Google Reader replacement that’s the best fit for you!

If you have an interest in practicing or studying international law, you may have heard of the American Society of International Law (ASIL).

A student membership includes access to several ASIL publications, including the American Journal of International Law and the ASIL Newsletter. In addition to its traditional publications, ASIL offers a range of electronic, video and career development resources, as well as numerous topical guides, papers and conferences.

Tomorrow, ASIL wraps up its annual meeting in Washington, D.C. (The program, including a description of all the educational programs, can be viewed here.) For future reference, please note (on the Registration tab) that students get very substantial discounts to attend, with access to educational programs, receptions and exhibits at the meeting.

The U.S. Supreme Court concluded oral arguments yesterday in the pair of cases on same-sex marriage that garnered much of the attention paid to law and legal issues this week. The transcripts and audio recordings are available for United States v. Windsor (here) and for Perry v. Hollingsworth (here).

Numerous reporters and commentators have weighed in with their observations, analyses and opinions. Some of the most interesting so far are from bloggers who write on law and public policy:

• Post-argument reports from Lyle Denniston (SCOTUSBlog) on Perry and Windsor
• Tom Goldstein (SCOTUSBlog), The relationship between DOMA and Proposition 8
• Dale Carpenter (The Volokh Conspiracy), Not there yet
• Jonathan Rauch (Brookings blog), Gay Marriage Hits the Supreme Court
• E.J. Graff (The American Prospect), Asked and answered

See also the exchange of views on SCOTUSBlog, with essays posted this morning by Gerard Bradley and John Bursch, with more to come.

Since the case involving the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act last Term, no oral arguments before the Supreme Court have been more anticipated than those on the two same-sex marriage cases to be argued this week: United States v. Windsor, re the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA); and Hollingsworth v. Perry, re California’s Proposition 8.

The Court’s web site provides visitor information and a guide for those attending their first oral argument. But that can hardly prepare one for the scene at the Court on those days. The lines to attend the oral argument began forming last Thursday night and are made longer by those who are paid to stand in them, holding a place for others. By Tuesday morning, despite bad weather on Sunday and Monday, there likely will be many times more people in line than possibly could attend even a few minutes of oral argument. Thousands more will be there for demonstrations and rallies.

Why the huge interest in these arguments? Last November, before the Court had decided to hear the cases, SCOTUSBlog’s Tom Goldstein provided some historical context:

I have never before seen cases that I believed would be discussed two hundred years from now.  Bush v. Gore and Obamacare were relative pipsqueaks.  The government’s assertion of the power to prohibit a loving couple to marry, or to refuse to recognize such a marriage, is profound.  So is the opposite claim that five Justices can read the federal Constitution to strip the people of the power to enact the laws governing such a foundational social institution.

The cases present a profound test of the Justices’ judgment.  The plaintiffs’ claims are rooted in the fact that these laws rest on an irrational and invidious hatred, enshrined in law.  On the other hand, that describes some moral judgments.  The Constitution does not forbid every inequality, and the people must correct some injustices (even some grave ones) themselves, legislatively.

Surprising some observers, the Court decided to hear both cases. The briefs have been filed. Possible outcomes have been anticipated, assessed and predicted by many observers (for example: here, here, here and here) and diagrammed here. Of course, much speculation focuses on the roles of Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts.

The arguments will be extensively covered by traditional press and social media.  Although the Court has never allowed television cameras to show the Court’s proceedings, audio recordings will be made available at the Court’s web site within hours of the arguments. But it won’t be necessary to wait that long for initial reports. Among others, The New Yorker‘s Jeffrey Toobin reports that he’ll be live-tweeting from the Court.

Up against a wall : rape reform and the failure of success / by Rose Corrigan. New York: New York University Press; c2013

Rape, how you define it and how you prevent it, continues to be a controversial subject.  With the conviction of the Steubenville defendants, activism in Egypt, and attempts at reform in India, the dialog about rape appears to be headed into a new phase.  Is there a culture of violence against women?  This is now an international question, not just one that we have raised in the United States.  The recent 57th meeting of the UN Commission on the Status of Women focused exclusively on violence against women and girls.

This book, which is concerned with efforts at rape reform in the United States, interviews anti-rape advocates to discover about why efforts a reform continue to meet with resistance.  From the review “ In a series of richly detailed case studies, the book weaves together scholarship on law and social movements, feminist theory, policy formation and implementation, and criminal justice to show how the innovative legal strategies employed by anti-rape advocates actually undermined some of their central claims.”

The latest issue of U.S. Law Week (Law Week) includes, as usual, stories on a wide range of topics,  as well as detailed coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court. It also illustrates the continuing integration of BNA products (formerly the Bureau of National Affairs) into Bloomberg Law.

One story reports on the oral argument before the Supreme Court yesterday in the Arizona voter registration case and provides a link to the full text of the argument transcript. (The transcript is also available from the Court’s web site.) Another story on copyright law covers the recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the use on a clip from the Ed Sullivan television show in the stage musical Jersey Boys is protected by the fair use doctrine. The story provides a link to the full text of the court’s decision, housed in the Bloomberg Law environment.

To sign up for email delivery of Law Week or to select from dozens of other Bloomberg BNA updates, go to BNA’s Law School Professional Information Center, and click on “Sign up for E-mail Updates.” After a brief registration process, the user can click the boxes next to the update titles she wants to receive by e-mail, and click Save to confirm. In the case of Law Week, email options include the standard weekly headlines or highlights, or a mailing that can be customized to include only stories involving selected topics, courts, agencies or states.

Registering for a Bloomberg Law account provides another access point for BNA updates.

Law Week also maintains a Twitter feed (@BBNAUSLawWeek) that provides one more way to follow news and get links to Law Week stories, court opinions and more.

On Monday, March 18th, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Arizona v. The Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona  in which, as SCOTUS blog explains, “The new Arizona voting rights case is important not only because of the citizenship proof requirement, but perhaps even more so because it calls on the Court to sort out the cooperative but sometimes conflicting roles of the state governments and Congress in regulating election procedures.”

This will be the first SCOTUS decision on the myriad of Republican-led state initiatives in the 2012 election cycle to impose new voter-ID requirements.

Stay tuned!

The first woman admitted to the Massachusetts bar was a BUSL graduate named Leila Robinson.  She actually had to change the law to get admitted (see 131 Mass. 376 (1881) and Acts and Resolves, Ch. 139 (1882)).  A new MCLE publication “Breaking Barriers: The Unfinished Story of Women Lawyers and Judges in Massachusetts” offers individual accounts, both historical and current, of the experiences of women lawyers including BU’s Tamar Frankel and Maureen O’Rourke.