Posted 5:56 PM by Anonymous

For those of you who didn't hear Jason Lewis talking about this and stating the obvious arguments tonight: It appears MN's new pledge of allegiance requirement is causing some issues at Central High School. It seems that we have a student who wishes to exercise her right to "opt out" by remaining seated while the rest of the class stands, even though her teacher instructed her that she would not have to speak the pledge, or she could leave the classroom, but she was not going to disrespect the flag by remaining seated. I have no problem with not requiring the pledge in the first place. But I balk at the suggestion that these pukes can go to a public school and get at education at the expense of the taxpayers, and then think they have a right to disrespect the flag of the nation willing to provide them with a free education. If this isn't biting the hand that feeds you, I don't know what is. Seems to me if you want to take advantage of a taxpayer funded service, you should probably have to do so on the taxpayers' terms. The Pioneer Press article is here.

The best line of the article? "The MCLU plans to send a fact book to all Minnesota school superintendents in the next few weeks to try to clear up the questions." Thank God we have the MCLU to read the minds of the legislature and judiciary so we can all be sure of getting an unbiased, 100% accurate view of what the law requires.


0 comments

Posted 1:53 PM by Anonymous

All of you equal protection fans might want to check out this story out of CA (where else) -- on a high school student who wants to start a "Caucasian Club" with the goal of celebrating diversity, in a school that already has a Black Club and an Asian Club. Needless to say, the NAACP already has its feathers ruffled over the outrageous racism inherent in such a proposal.

PS I got this from www.tonguetied.us, an amusing blog of over-the-edge PC-ness. Y'all should check it out.

0 comments

Posted 12:47 PM by Anonymous

Nevada's Supreme Court Rewrites the Constitution Here's a court that really thinks the Constitution is a living document - although the Constitution at issue here is Nevada's. The legislature voted not to raise taxes and refused to pass the Governor's school budget. So the Governor sued the legislature. And the Nevada Supreme Court decided that government funding of public education was significantly more important than adhering to the Nevada Constitution...so it ordered the legislature to raise taxes! Don't like that pesky procedural requirement? Just disregard it!

"Inconveniences will follow from following the Constitution as written," said a New York judge a century and a half ago. But "if...under color of construction...[we] may depart from that which is plainly declared, the people may well despair of ever being able to set a boundary to the powers of the government. Written constitutions will be worse than useless."



0 comments

Posted 11:36 AM by Anonymous

Column of the day: Jonah Goldberg's "Liberals need to get hip to young conservatives." Personally I'm very relieved I don't have to wear a blue blazer and bash gay people anymore. At our next meeting, we'll discuss how to dress like other young law students so that the ACS will take us seriously.


0 comments

Posted 3:46 PM by Anonymous

NEWS FLASH: Democratic candidate for President Dick Gephart proposes tax hikes on Middle Class Working Families! See this column for all the scintillating details.

And my favorite column of the day (actually of yesterday): Ann Coulter writes American Women to Kerry: We don't think you're so hot.

0 comments

Posted 3:25 PM by Anonymous

Senate Republicans may use the Nuclear Option to break the judicial nomination deadlock. Byron York also describes possibilities for breaking the deadlock today in the National Review Online. Although many Bush nominees have already been approved, the current battle focuses on Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen.

Who are these nominees that are so offensive to the Dems in Congress?

Miguel Estrada has been repeatedly referred to as an "American success story." He's an immigrant from Honduras. He graduated magna cum laude with a bachelor's degree from Columbia College and received his law degree, magna cum laude, from Harvard. A mere ten years after arriving in this country as a 17 year old immigrant who didn't speak English, he was clerking for Justice Kennedy. He also worked in the Solicitor General's Office under President Clinton.

Why is this phenomenally succesful member of a minority group so feared by the Democrats? Estrada is criticised for supporting capital punishment, opposing abortion, and *gasp* for being a partner with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, the law firm that represented President Bush in Bush v. Gore. The National Organization for Women also reports that he's been labeled as an ideologue (The NOW crowd, of course, could hardly be labeled as such!) whose personal views would spill into rulings. (Not to be cynical, but there may be a reason opinions on controversial cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, are split on ideological lines. Why are Kennedy and O'Connor known as swing votes if personal views never affect judicial decisions? Are we all really so naive?)

But even liberals and democrats support Estrada. Robert Litt, Associate Deputy Attorney General in the Criminal Justice Division of the Clinton DOJ says "I have never felt that the arguments he made were in any way outside the scope of legitimate legal analysis." He stated that Estrada is eminently qualified to serve on the Court of Appeals, and hopes for his confirmation. Ronald Klain, who was Vice President Gore’s chief of staff and has known Mr. Estrada since Harvard, said in The Washington Post on 5/23/01 that Estrada would be able to "faithfully follow the law." Mr. Klain wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee stating that he had no doubt Estrada would "faithfully apply the precedents of his court, and the Supreme Court, without regard to his personal views or political perspectives."

The American Bar Association, bastion of right wing conservatism, has given Estrada a rating of "well qualified," the highest possible rating.

And of course, he's supported by Latino organizations (this despite his supposed support for "anti-loitering" laws that disproportionately single out" Latinos.) The Latino Coalition believes that he has "demonstrated a commitment to upholding the integrity of the law." Other Latino organizations, such as the League of United Latin American Citizens, the Hispanic Business Roundtable and the Hispanic National Bar Association also enthusiastically support Estrada.

Oh, and NOW is careful to point out in its "Stop the Court Packing" alert that Estrada is a member of the Federalist Society. Well, that's just the last straw.


Priscilla Owen's main failing appears to be the fact that she's pro-life. A parade of liberal, left wing organizations don't like Justice Owen, currently serving on the Texas Supreme Court. ">NOW thinks she shouldn't be approved because of her staunch opposition to abortion. (It is necessary to realize that only abortion supporters should be federal judges, according to the liberal left.) In fact, she supports the elimination of buffer zones around abortion clinics! (That pesky First Amendment...) And worst of all, she voted against providing a judicial bypass to teenage girls trying to abort their babies without their parents' knowledge. And once again, NOW emphasizes, she's a Federalist: "Member of the board of the Houston Chapter of the Federalist Society, an ultra-conservative legal organization." Ultra-conservative! I'm sure some of our members would be surprised. Heck, I'm surprised. Gee, other than her impermissible pro-life views and the fact that she's a Federalist, there really isn't that much out there.

Oh, Enron gave her campaign a whopping $8,600 in 1994 (if anything, just an argument against state judges being elected rather than appointed). Since 1993 (i.e. in the last ten years) Enron has, according to NOW, contributed $134,058 to Owen and other members of the Court. And apparently the fact that since 1993 the Texas Supreme Court (which has nine justices) has found in favor of Enron five out of six times it has appeared before that Court is a prime reason Owen shouldn't be appointed to the Fifth Circuit. (Now, I'll admit I haven't read through all of those cases, but do we really have to assume that absolutely every time Enron went to court that they deserved to lose? Was Owen required to step up and demand that the Court find for Enron's adversary, regardless of the merits of the case?) Oh, and by the way, Justice Owen didn't even participate in all of those cases.

But she can't be all that bad. A former President of Legal Aid of Central Texas, Hector De Leon, believes she has a commitment to providing legal services to the poor and that she will bring empathy for those who can't afford legal services to the Fifth Circuit. A former law clerk called her "a role model for...women attorneys in Texas." Also, the report put out by the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary, "Justice Priscilla Owens: Myth vs. Reality" is worth taking a look at.





0 comments

Posted 10:39 AM by Anonymous

This recent article by Michael Barone on Hard America vs. Soft America is worth a break from studying for exams. It explains why America remains strong and vibrant despite our failing public school system.

One of the peculiar features of our country is that we produce incompetent 18-year-olds and remarkably competent 30-year-olds. Americans at 18 typically score lower on standardized tests than 18-year-olds from other advanced countries. Watch them on their first few days working at McDonald's or behind the counter in chain drugstores, and it's obvious that they don't really know how to make change or keep the line moving. But by the time Americans are 30, they are the most competent people in the world. They produce a stronger and more vibrant private-sector economy; they produce scientific and technical advances that lead the world; they provide the world's best medical care; they create the strongest and most agile military the world has ever seen. And it's not just a few meritocrats at the top: American talent runs wide and deep. Why?


0 comments

Posted 6:41 PM by Anonymous

Hot off the presses, this just in... The MN state Senate has just passed Conceal Carry Reform by a vote of 37-30. If any of you watched the debate in the Senate chamber this evening, it was quite amusing. Two DFLers broke the traditional rules of decorum and opted to instead wear FLAK jackets. If anyone is nuts it's got to be them, not the law abiding citizens who will soon be able to exercise their right to self-defense.

0 comments

Posted 1:17 AM by Anonymous

Here is a good Economist article on the drug war for those Libertarians among us. I am sure our Con law professors could find an Equal Protection violation in the US drug policy somewhere - see if you can find it in the article! (The article itself is old, but for some reason the website had a link to an older print edition in place of this weeks). It is still an interesting read.

0 comments

Posted 6:17 PM by Anonymous

Newt Gingrich gave an interesting speech yesterday at the American Enterprise Institute. In it, he argued that unless the State Department can make bold changes, the reputation of the United States in the global arena will be harmed and our ability to effect change hampered. Our reputation is harmed when we fail diplomatically, becasue we are then required to win militarily. The Center for Security Policy called the speech "one of the most important foreign policy addresses by a former national leader since Winston Churchill" gave his Fulton (Iron Curtain) Speech in March of 1946. I don't know about that, but read the speech if you get the chance.

0 comments