At our firm, VSSF, we love employment law. That is, we like when employers screw up by treating their employees wrongfully. Now, I heard that Senators ask feds to probe requests for job applicants' Facebook passwords! What? These 2 U.S. senators are asking the Attorney General to investigate whether employers asking for Facebook passwords during job interviews are violating federal law.

I wonder if this violates privacy rights? The purpose of a password is to create an expectation of privacy.

Many people smoke. Many people try to quit smoking. Many people can't stop smoking because it is so addicting. Many people die as a result.

We all know that smokers have been tricked for years and lured into this deadly "habit." R.J. Reynolds wants the Supreme Court to relieve them of some lower court decisions and verdicts against them.

However, the only remedy for the Tobacco industry was the last resort to go to the Supremes.

Recently, R.J. Reynolds lost that request by losing their only chance to fight a smoker’s verdict in the highest court in the land. Facing a $28.3 million wrongful death verdict against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., they asked the Supreme Court to review the case, but the Court declined to consider legal questions at this time.

The impact of this denial? It will now affect thousands of similar cases by smokers and their families.

Will the Tobacco Company just start settling these left and right? Only time will tell.

Is it okay to sue the doctors? Is it legal to sue the health care industry for many of the wrongful births?

Birth Day: Child is born with birth defect.

9+ months prior to Birth Day: Here is a young couple in agreement to raise a big family. Just picture the young couple who find out that wife is pregnant. Of course, the next 9 months will entail them facing the stress and anxiety of pregnancy (but also the joy of) the birth of their new baby.

6 months prior to Birth Day: All prenatal testing, interpreted by doctors, shows no signs of any problems.

Back to Birth Day: All the excitement comes to dark gloom when the young couple finds that they lost her at delivery or their daughter was born with Down's.

A recent jury awarded almost $3 million to a couple who sued for the “wrongful birth” of their daughter. The legal claim is medical malpractice, where parents of a tragic birth scenario (child dies or child is born with a birth defect) decide to sue the physician or provider for the pain and damages.

It becomes more controversial when the allegation is that negligence occurred during diagnosis, which some argue deprives parents from making a decision about whether to terminate the pregnancy or not.

If not for the pain and suffering, what suing for the extra medical costs associated with raising a child with a serious birth defect?

Is it fair for parents in such situations to say on the one hand that they are so blessed with their child (as most do regardless), but state on the other had that had they known their child would have Down Syndrome, they would have aborted?

I don't know. Does election of a President, who appoints the next member(s) of the Supreme Court affect this? Should it?