You are here: Fairness.com > Resources > Dahlia Lithwick

Dahlia Lithwick


Self Description

Third-Party Descriptions

October 2003: Journalist.

Relationships

RoleNameTypeLast Updated
Employee/Contractor/Fellow/Freelancer (past or present) Newsweek Source Jul 4, 2010
Employee/Contractor/Fellow/Freelancer (past or present) Slate Source Sep 8, 2016
Researcher/Analyst of US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Organization Jul 4, 2010

Articles and Resources

31 Articles and Resources. Go to:  [Previous 20]

Date Fairness.com Resource Read it at:
Apr 01, 2005 The Limbaugh Code: The New York Times best seller no one is talking about.

QUOTE: He wants to cut all judges off at the knees: He'd like to give force to the impeachment rules, put legislative limits on the kinds of constitutional questions courts may review, and institute judicial term limits. He'd also amend the Constitution to give congress a veto over the court's decisions. Each of which imperils the notion of an independent judiciary...

Slate
Mar 02, 2005 Take Two Tablets: The Supreme Court picks through the rubble of its Ten Commandments jurisprudence.

QUOTE: ...pair of [Supreme Court--Ed.] cases involving displays of the Ten Commandments on state property. At one level everything appears scholarly and doctrinal. Until you realize that the doctrine is a mess, and the justices are so tangled up in old tests, old glosses on old tests, and new glosses on new tests that they don't even know how to talk about the Establishment Clause cases, much less how to resolve them.

Slate
Feb 10, 2005 Stupidity as a Firing Offense: Why is Bill O'Reilly chairing our faculty meetings?

QUOTE: It's an argument for making all political discourse conform to the sensibilities of the most fragile victim. It's an argument for banning any discussions of the American Revolution in history classes because some student may have burnt her tongue on a mug of tea once.

Slate
Feb 01, 2005 Supreme Chickens? The high court's Gitmo confusion comes home to roost.

QUOTE: In its 6-to-3 opinion in Rasul v. Bush, the court established conclusively that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from these prisoners in some fashion or other. But...it's becoming clear that litigating each word of every clause in every one of those questions may consume some of these prisoners' natural born lifetimes.

Slate
Jan 27, 2005 Thanks for the Repressed Memories: Junk vs. science in the Paul Shanley trial.

QUOTE: As with most overheated scientific controversies in the courtroom, the truth probably lies midway between two bitterly polarized camps: Some witnesses do make up stories, and some therapist do implant memories; but some victims surely do recover lost childhood memories that were too terrible to consider at the time.

Slate
Jan 27, 2005 Does This Lawsuit Make Me Look Fat? Are french fries the new Marlboros?

QUOTE: In 2003, Dahlia Lithwick looked at the wave of lawsuits inspired by improbable victories over Big Tobacco and found the Big Food plaintiffs relied too heavily on dubious claims of causality and wacky conspiracy theories to stand a legitimate chance of vindication. This week's appeals court decision suggests the plaintiffs may have shown enough of a link between big fat and Big Food to prevail.

Slate
Sep 10, 2004 How Do You Solve the Problem of Sharia? Canada grapples with the boundaries of legal multiculturalism.

QUOTE: an issue that blurs the boundary between religious tolerance and oppression. The Ontario government is considering a proposal to allow certain family law matters—including divorce, custody, and inheritance—to be arbitrated by panels of Muslim clerics. Supporters of the proposal say that Canada's commitment to cultural diversity requires that Muslim law be accorded the same respect as other legal systems. Opponents say Muslim law inherently conflicts with the basic freedoms guaranteed Canadians.

Slate
Aug 17, 2004 A Sexual Bill of Rights: Bickering over vibrators on the 11th Circuit.

QUOTE: The big fight comes down, very simply, to this: Does the Constitution protect, as a "fundamental right," private, consensual sexual activity that harms no one? The answer to this turns largely on how you choose to read Justice Anthony Kennedy's majestic-yet-inscrutable majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas—the gay sodomy case decided two terms ago by the Supreme Court.

Slate
Jul 15, 2004 After the Supreme Court's sentencing case, the sky is falling. Hooray!

QUOTE: The problem, of course, is that most scholars agree that the most logical inference one can draw from Blakely v. Washington is that significant portions of the federal guidelines are unconstitutional, too. The justices did not declare that outright. Instead, they implied it, packed up their sarongs and hacky sacks, and took off for the shore, leaving federal courts around the country in a situation that has quickly escalated from messy to desperate.

Slate
Oct 09, 2003 Junkie Justice

QUOTE: Does drug addiction constitue a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act? And if it does, did Raytheon use their zero-tolerance policy to discriminate against Joel Hernandez?

Slate
Feb 06, 2003 Poetic Licenses: Are "Choose Life" license plates free speech or state-sponsored infomercials?

QUOTE: Has the state, by opening up license plates as a forum for private speech, incurred a constitutional obligation to allow speakers of every viewpoint equal access to that forum?

Slate

31 Articles and Resources. Go to:  [Previous 20]