Delaware Law Office
of Larry D. Sullivan, Esquire

A Weblog?
The column to the right, is a news/editorial/comment column. It is a weblog, also know as a blog.

The weblog thing comes from, which offers us a convenient way to manage the posting, administratively. You don't really need to know all of that, but we have included this explanation so that you won't be confused by the term "blog".

Another important topic here is that since the column includes editorials and comments, you can be sure that we are just exercising our free speech rights as guaranteed by the Constitution and as not yet abridged by a reactionary opportunistic vocal minority.

opinions, everybody's got one...
If you would like your opinion published here, forward it for consideration and editorial review to:
Or add a comment. Comments by: YACCS

We encourage the exchange of responsible ideas.

Thursday, March 16, 2006

International Law a Threat to Freedom?

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg acknowledged recently that she has received death threats during her time on the court.

One threat in particular, posted online, railed Ginsburg and former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor for their use mention of international law in some of their opinions. The author of the threat says that their use of international law in their rulings is "a huge threat to our republic and constitutional freedom," the author then goes on to threaten their lives.

What this person does not realize is the bitter irony in his statements, even if the author does not follow through on his death threat the mere writing and publishing on the internet of such a statement is more damaging to our republic and our Constitution than all of Ginsburg's international law references combined, regardless of whether you agree with her judicial opinions or not.

Our founding fathers designed a Constitution that was nearly perfect, and from and within that Constitution sprung many important ideals which are necessary for our republic to function the way we expect it to. One of the most important of these ideals is the notion of judicial independence.

Our founding fathers recognized that this was important, which is why Judge is the only office in the federal government that is given an irrevocable life term. Short of breaking the law Justices and federal Judges cannot be removed from office by anyone. These life terms, in theory, give justices the necessary independence to make their decisions free of political constraints.

Whereas politicians are not apt to make unpopular decisions, no matter how right that decision may be, Judges have the freedom to make unpopular decisions in theory, because they do not have a constituency to please, as does a politician.

What the person who threatened Justice Ginsburg did was threaten judicial independence. No matter how unlikely it is that someone would actually assassinate a Supreme Court Justice, the threat and Justice Ginsburg's knowledge of it are enough to possibly affect her future decisions, and that is "a huge threat to our republic and constitutional freedom."

Posted by:
Frank Molfetta

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

New Family Court Rule 16.2

Rule 16.2 of the Family Court Civil Rules has been amended, effective March 1, 2006.

Here is a link to the new rule: Rule 16.2(a)(4)

The amendment added the language "for the petitioner and children." This relates to Rule 16.2(a)(2) that states that "Children between the ages of eight and sixteen at the time of filing shall participate in a Court approved education program with either parent." Normally when a parent completes the Parenting Education Course, they receive a certificate that is filed with the Court. According to the amended rule, that certificate must now also state that the children attended the course if they are between the ages of eight and sixteen.

I don't think that this new rule will affect parents taking the course pursuant to 13 Del. C. Section 1508(h). Under that section, when there are children of a marriage under 17, and the parents are getting divorced, the parents must attend the Parenting Education Course. If neither party is seeking custody or visitation, then the children would not have to attend the course.

The strange section is 13 Del. C. Section 1508(g) also known as the Affidavit of Children's Rights. This section requires that a divorcing parent sign an affidavit showing that the parent has read or been advised of certain children's rights. The strange thing is that there is no age cut-off for this rule. Therefore, even if the children are grown, the parent still needs to file the Affidavit of Children's Rights before the Court will grant a divorce.

Congratulations to Craig!!!

Congratulations go out to our legal assistant, Craig Springer, for being accepted into the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan.

Named for the former Michigan Supreme Court Justice, the school was accredited by the American Bar Association in 1975.

Delaware (Executive Branch) Meetings and Events

Craig's List Delaware

Technorati Delaware Search

New Castle County Crime Map

Business Blogs
Start Blogging