Thomas, You are right that Justice Scalia did not join Part I of the concurring opinion. The post has been corrected. Thank you. This is not the forum for analyzing Justice Thomas's view of the Establishment Clause, although your intimation that there is merit to the argument supports the main point of the post. In Newdow, Thomas wrote that "As a textual matter, [the] Clause probably prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion."

Here is an interesting consumer report on the efficacy on Legal Zoom and other DIY software: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2012/09/legal-diy-websites-are-no-match-for-a-pro/index.htm

Dear Doug, Some of the characteristics of this "corporatization" in my view are: replacement of tenure-track and tenured faculty with less expensive labor (primarily in the form of adjuncts), cuts to "unproductive" or "impractical" programs and departments, the maintenance of larger classes to maximize revenue and minimize costs, and less support and regard for research and scholarship that is unlikely to generate revenue.

John, I'm curious: Why would that indicate a lack of judgment and/or dereliction of duty? The vast majority of criminal cases are tried in state court. This was a crime that occurred in and around Boston. Tsarnaev himself is from the area. Adler in his post compares the Tsarnaev case to Bond, but Bond involved a woman who held a weapon that was prohibited by a U.S. treaty. I would see this case differently obviously if Tsarnaev targeted a federal installation.

I agree with John that it speaks well of the U.S. legal system, that Tsarnaev will have excellent legal representation. This being said, I am disappointed by the extent to which normal procedures are set aside when it comes to terrorism cases (particularly those involving Muslim men). I have no doubt that the Feds wish to try Tsarnaev, but as George points out, the only basis for federal jurisdiction is that he allegedly used bombs. The Aurora shooter could also have been tried in federal court on this basis (but was not). The immigration issue does not support federal jurisdiction as Tsarnev was in the United States legally and is a U.S. citizen. The transcript itself is macabre. When this hearing took place, Tsarnaev was in "serious condition." Was there any reason that this proceeding couldn't take place when Tsarnev's health improved? He was informed of his rights as he was still under the effects of sedation and drifting in and out of consciousness. Apparently since his hospitalization he has been cooperating with investigators but has not been afforded any time to meet with counsel (probably because his lawyers would instruct him to not cooperate unless the authorities agree to not pursue the death penalty).

Great question, Stephen. I think Promontory would say that since it largely focuses on improving its' clients compliance systems and internal controls as opposed to addressing specific legal issues that it functions more as a consulting firm than a law firm. This being said, it also advertises its ability to conduct investigations in response to regulatory inquiries and that regulators will often defer to these investigations because of the firm's "independence." That sounds an awful lot like what law firms have traditionally done. As to why this is not treated as UPL, I think the consulting industry is too big and complex for UPL committees and there is a rather widespread perception that large corporations can fend for themselves and don't need the protection of bar committees. I personally find it troubling that non-lawyers can be retained to conduct investigations in response to SEC inquiries and that the SEC will defer to their "independent" findings, but I think others would say that Promontory is filling an important niche and that it and other enterprises like it will occupy a larger share of the legal services market in the future, lest lawyers and law firms modernize.