Fritz Feds

Posted 1:55 AM by Jason
Thanks Dean, I didn't want to study for finals anyway.

Here is a defense of the Law School’s position on the Solomon Amendment from Dean Alex Johnson, Prof. Dale Carpenter, and Prof. Beverly Balos, who is chair of the Solomon Amendment Amelioration Committee.  While it is noted at the end that they are writing in their capacity as individuals (to the extent that the Dean of a law school can really be separated from that school), I doubt that it is far from the law school’s real position, except that they feel the need to separate themselves for official reasons.  Some points of contention:

“It is precisely because we respect and support our armed forces that we want them to be stronger by including all qualified and loyal Americans, whether black, female, or gay.”

Is it really necessary to toss in a laundry list of approved victim groups here?  Last time I checked this issue was only about the last.  The others may have been issues to differing degrees in the past, each for their own reason, but they are not here, and serve only to muddle the issue.  Why couldn’t they have just said “whether gay or straight”? or something like that.

“In wartime, expelling thousands of service members (like Arab linguists) who happen to be gay hurts national security, wastes our tax dollars on needless investigations into their private lives, and unfairly discriminates against our students.”

Is there data on this somewhere?  Does the military expel thousands of gay service members every year? (actually, according to the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which is dedicated to abolishing dadtdpdh, the most servicemembers expelled in any single year, across all branches, was 1273) Are Arab linguists disproportionately gay? If not, does “like Arab linguists” really need to be there?  Are there really expensive, shady, in-depth investigations going on? In wartime this isn’t ok, but it might be in peacetime? (the statement leaves that possibility open)  This statement, like others, boils down really to one thing, “unfairly discriminates against our students”, which is a fine position to have, but has so many extras tacked on that the only point is lost in the clutter of misdirection.  The wasting of tax dollars comes up again:

“In an age of expansive federal budgets increasingly leveraged to pressure dissenters to conform, we must preserve liberty at home just as our military defends it abroad.”

Oh yeah, the U is really worried about federal budgets being too big.  $351 million dollars came to the U last year alone.  Now, I do think they have a point about the law school not being dependent on federal funds (though I imagine with the exception of federal student loans), and that the reason the schools follow Solomon requirements is that they’re essentially being nice to the parent institution.  The text of the Solomon Amendment does not mention law schools specifically, but it is the law schools (or rather, law schools under FAIR, and law profs under SALT) and not the parent institutions (who have a lot more to lose) that are challenging it (though there are probably a good number of the latter affiliated with FAIR).  Furthermore:

“Since we are compelled by the Solomon Amendment not only to permit but to assist in this on-campus discrimination, the faculty joined FAIR”

Again, read the text.  They are required to assist by not having a policy that explicitly or effectively denies military recruiters access to:

Names, addresses, and telephone listings.  Date and place of birth, levels of education, academic majors, degrees received, and the most recent educational institution enrolled in by the student.

But of course:

“Students who disagree with the law school's non-discrimination policy, or with our commitment to enforcing it, are free to speak up.”

Yeah, I’ll go ahead and do that, I heart discrimination, and would love to be identified as such.  As I’ve said before, and I have been a total hypocrite in this regard, I think this issue is being beaten to death.  For my part, while civilian control of the military is essential for the preservation of a free society, I cannot presume to know or say what would be best for the military in this area.  Apparently the Dean and these Professors feel comfortable doing so.  Though they profess to want to make the military stronger, their course of action will do nothing to remedy what they see as the real problem, “Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue, don’t harass.”

Overturning Solomon would accomplish just the opposite of what they claim to want: it would reduce the military’s ability to get the best people, whether they be black, female, or gay, or heavens, white, male, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, Native American, asexual, Inuit, whatever, because there will be schools that don’t just “not assist” recruiters, but close the doors to them altogether.  I reckon FAIR et al. think that a victory here would push the military to get rid of DADTDPDH, and though I doubt it, it could.  A more honest, more legitimate, and probably more effective way to do that would be to work to change public, military, and legislative opinion of the ban on open homosexuality.  Alas, like supporters of so many lefty causes, they have decided to use the least democratic, least representative, and least accountable branch instead.  And Hamilton thought the judiciary was weak.

4 comments

Posted 4:37 PM by magnu231
Halfway Through

Nothing like a little basketball to make me realize...I HATE FINALS! I should have followed my dream, and made it to the NBA. Or been a fighter pilot. That would be sweet. Instead, I'm stuck re-reading Contracts and Torts. I'm not asking for your sympathy. I'm BEGGING for it. So if any of the three people who read our blog has the KEY to Contracts or Torts, has climbed the mystical mountain to the top of the Mondale building, and has learned from the guru the secret of Life (strike that, I don't care about the secret of life, just contracts and torts), then let me know, for the love of sanity. Hmm. I was intending this to be humorous, but on rereading, it seems to be much duller than usual. I knew it! Law school has finally claimed my soul. I'm almost ready for the new suit, the slick hair, and the fashionable liberal causes.

0 comments

Posted 2:26 PM by Jason
Mint Condition

Awesome, since (though I did like them) the last round of dollar coins went over so well:

Presidents to appear on dollar coins
WASHINGTON, Dec. 16 (UPI) -- The U.S. Mint beginning in 2007 will start striking new dollar coins featuring the pictures of dead presidents for the first time in decades.
Four coins will be issued each year in the order in which the presidents served, reports USA Today. They are expected to become collectors' items similar to the 10-year state quarter program, which ends with Hawaii in 2008.
The dollar coins also are expected to save the government about $500 million a year because they last longer than paper dollars. But they are not expected to completely replace paper bills because of public preference.

2 comments

Posted 2:10 AM by Jason
Sen. Proxmire, R.I.P.

Former Senator Bill Proxmire, from my home state of Wisconsin, has passed away.
From the article:
Proxmire became a household name for his monthly Golden Fleece awards, started in 1975, to highlight "the biggest or most ridiculous or most ironic example of government waste." The ceremony, as such, was a speech on the Senate floor.
Proxmire's awards went to studies that used public money to explore the effects of booze on fish, why prisoners like to escape from jail and the shapeliness of airplane stewardesses.
He gave the Army Corps of Engineers the 1976 award of the year for "the worst record of cost overruns in the entire federal government -- 47 percent of Corps current projects had cost overruns of 100 percent or more."
The award backfired in 1976, when Proxmire gave the prize to a Michigan researcher for studying aggressiveness in monkeys. The scientist sued for libel and later settled out of court with the senator. Proxmire, criticized because the Senate paid his $124,000 legal bill, helped repay the money.

0 comments

Posted 12:07 AM by Jason
Its the end of the world as we know it...

Ok, so I’m up late just posting away as if exams don’t exist, and a show comes on channel 45 (broadcast) that apparently is hosted by Kato Kaelin and called “Eye for an Eye”. It is yet another of the current onslaught of Peoples’ Court rip-offs, but this one takes the cake. Right now there’s a pet psychic helping resolve a dispute between former gay lovers over custody of a dog. The parties stand inside of some kind of cage looking contraptions, and the “judge” has a baseball bat.

0 comments

Posted 11:38 PM by Jason
No Comment

(Reuters) — Lesbian motorcycle enthusiasts have won their fight to trademark the name “Dykes on Bikes,” a lawyer for their group said on Thursday.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had denied applications by the San Francisco Women’s Motorcycle Contingent to trademark “Dykes on Bikes,” arguing the phrase would be perceived as disparaging to lesbians.
But the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the Brooke Oliver Law Group said the word “dyke” is no longer viewed as derogatory.
“Within the lesbian community that term has been reclaimed as a very positive term that denotes strength and pride and empowerment,” said Shannon Minter, a lawyer for the National Center for Lesbian Rights.

0 comments

Posted 10:15 PM by Jason
Apprentice 4

I never really watched The Apprentice until recently, owing mostly to the fact that I now don’t have cable and I needed something to watch before Bar Review. Tonight was the big finale, and Minnesota native Rebecca was passed over in favor of Randall. I thought both candidates were very good, and both made me feel like a total slacker. Its been discussed that Rebecca founded a non-profit foundation to benefit disenfranchised children, which is cool, though I think the term is overused and a bit improper when used to refer to anything other than denial of the franchise (political rights) to those who would otherwise have it (i.e. felons in most states). Its probably still really cool, if anyone reading this knows the name of the foundation could you post it in comments, I can’t seem to find it.

Anyway, throughout the episode I predicted (to myself, I have no corroboration) that the Donald, in an attempt to rock the world and be awesome and, well, to build hype, would hire both candidates. He didn’t, but he asked Randall if he should, and Randall said he thought it would be improper. Not the nicest thing ever to do, but I suppose he wanted to preserve his place in the limelight.

0 comments

Posted 9:58 PM by Jason
What's that Kanye?

Information released by the state of Louisiana this week pretty much eviscerates any claim that the response to Hurricane Katrina was affected by race or that African Americans were disproportionately harmed. There’s an article on it here, but here’s the gist of it all:

“But the state's demographic information suggests that whites in New Orleans died at a higher rate than minorities. According to the 2000 census, whites make up 28 percent of the city's population, but the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals indicates that whites constitute 36.6 percent of the storm's fatalities in the city.African-Americans make up 67.25 percent of the population and 59.1 percent of the deceased. Other minorities constitute approximately 5 percent of the population and represented 4.3 percent of the storm's fatalities.”

UPDATE: Oh, there’s also this.

2 comments

Posted 9:39 PM by Jason
Iraq War Intelligence

In her Opinion Journal column this week Peggy Noonan discusses President Bush’s recent round of speeches on the Iraq war, where he has re-acknowledged and accepted responsibility for the decision to go to war based on intelligence that turned out to be false. Just a taste of the column:

In his speech yesterday the president said the obvious: that the intelligence received in the buildup to the war was faulty. He asserted that Saddam's past and present history justified invasion nonetheless. This left me thinking again about a particular part of the WMD story. I decided my own position in support of invasion after Colin Powell warned the U.N. in dramatic terms of Saddam's development of weapons that were wicked, illegal and dangerous to the stability of the world. It is to me beyond belief that he was not speaking what he believed to be true. And I believed him, as did others.

0 comments

Posted 7:07 PM by Jason
ONLY IN AMERICA!

Ok, this is too good to not read, so I am copying the whole text from Drudge, since its likely that the link will get changed or removed or something fairly soon.

CNN, THE SITUATION ROOM 4:00 PM EST (yesterday)

WOLF BLITZER, HOST: Don king is known worldwide as a big-time boxing promoter. But has also taken some new fights on recently...You love George Bush?

DON KING; I love George Walker Bush because I think he's a revolutionary. He's a president that comes in with conclusiveness. What they're doing in tomorrow in Iraq is a demonstration of that for the vote for democracy. The fundamental process of democracy is freedom of speech, law and order, being able to have freedom, working with people and working and governing yourselves. George Bush is that. He included in...

BLITZER: Do you have any regrets supporting him? Take a look at that picture when you and I were there at the diner last year. Do you have any regrets supporting him as enthusiastically as you did?

KING: No, I don't. In fact, I want to support him more now because it seems like everybody is punching him. You know what I mean? But he's fighting back, and he's throwing great combinations. And I think he's the guy that is really a revolutionary president. I think he's a president that cares about the people he represents, but doesn't compromise himself to the extent that he acquiesce and accommodate. He goes out there and says like it is, and tries to make things better. Inclusiveness, education, is fighting for that. These are the things that many guys that don't fight for -- George Walker Bush is a tremendous advocate to America, a great president for the great American people, and he's decisive. He's doesn't equivocate.

0 comments

Posted 1:29 PM by magnu231
Iraq Votes! Libs Ignore.

I thought this was a very interesting list. I've been spending some time at www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com, reading about the election in Iraq (which seems a very positive thing, high turnout, very little violence). Then, I ran across this page, categorizing the response on liberal blogs. You ready? [Drumroll] Pretty much none! (And before you say anything, I know that liberal blogs don't represent mainstream liberal thought, conservative blogs would do the same thing, etc, etc, etc). However, it does call into question the political climate of the day. Back in the day we (as far as I know) sincerely believed in different things as policy considerations, not as a fervent faux-religion. If facts that disagreed with us came up, we'd acknowledge them and either explain them or temper our own views (something I still strive to do, not always successfully). But it seems we're past that. If anyone has seen the video of Sam Seder on CNN just acting a fool in regards to the "war on Christmas" (which I think is kind of a joke to begin with), you would understand. We're no longer relying on the same facts to draw different conclusions or perhaps formulate common ground and then diverge on belief structures. We now ignore anything not good for our cause. And I think that's a problem.

http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/19531/

0 comments

Posted 12:56 PM by magnu231
The 95 Theses

Jonah Goldberg rocks. And this piece is right on (mainly because it's what I've been saying for years). In some sense the conservative movement has lost its way.

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200512140816.asp

2 comments

Posted 12:17 PM by Jason
Hearsay Exceptions

Ok, so one more post before I study. Granted I haven’t had Evidence yet, but this video is absolutely hilarious, check it out. (HT Juan Non-Volokh)

0 comments

Posted 12:06 PM by Jason
Solomon Amendment response

For those of you that don’t read the Strib (and that includes me), below is a letter to the editor in response to Katherine Kersten’s piece (see below) from a couple days ago from Steven Marchese of the CPDC, and a short one from some guy who must have had nothing else going on. I will comment later, once I am sick of the Con Law I’m studying.

ON-CAMPUS RECRUITING

Twisting the facts
Once again, Katherine Kersten plays fast and loose with the facts -- this time, in her Dec. 13 column regarding the University of Minnesota Law School and military recruiting ("Has U Law School taken up a cause of shaky merit?").
Contrary to any impression Kersten might give, no student at the law school has ever been denied the opportunity to meet with a military recruiter on campus. Rather, the central issue is whether the U.S. military should be exempted from the same rules of fairness that apply to every employer seeking to meet students and use law school facilities.
If any other employer, whether private or public, wished to interview and hire only white or Christian law students, it would not be allowed to do so in the law school building.
However, under the Solomon Amendment, the U.S. military can demand the opportunity to interview on campus, even though its policies would prevent its representatives from ever hiring a single gay or lesbian student.
With the Solomon Amendment, Congress wields its spending power to bribe access for the military and holds the principle of nondiscrimination hostage to its tremendous financial leverage over this nation's universities. This exercise in coercion should shock and concern anyone, let alone someone who purports to consider herself a conservative.
However, this doesn't seem to faze Kersten one bit and lays bare the true intention behind her column, which is to ignore reality and pander to prejudice. Kersten may fantasize that, by opposing the Solomon Amendment, the law school faculty was motivated by some historical antipathy to the military and desire to suppress discussion.
However, through her provocative rhetoric and willful ignorance of the facts, it is Kersten who undermines the principle of equality that should underpin how our government deals with every member of society. And there is nothing conservative about that.
STEVEN MARCHESE, MINNEAPOLIS; DIRECTOR, CAREER AND
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTER,
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL

No room for dissent
According to Katherine Kersten, if you receive federal funding you are not allowed to oppose the policies of the federal government. Interesting contention but un-American to its core.
JOHN M. ALLEN, MINNEAPOLIS

1 comments

Posted 6:15 PM by Jason
Justice for Tookie

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied Tookie Williams’ request for clemency today, he is slated to die just after midnight.  Here is the AP story, and here is the Gov’s official statement.

Fox 9 news at 5 referred to Tookie Williams as the author of “best selling” children’s books.  Way to do your research Channel 9, his most popular (to stretch the hell out of the term) has sold about 330 copies, while another has sold 2.  I pulled this off of a story on BlackNews.com that is highly critical of the Hollywood left’s demand for clemency.  It is definitely worth a read, sorry Snoop.  I can’t seem to find much info on the website itself about, well, the website, but they do have commentary by Jesse Jackson, who favors clemency, though others on the site do not.

The point made in these pieces that I find interesting is that Tookie’s claims of redemption cannot be separated from the fact that he has never owned up to his crimes or apologized to the families.  Redemption, eh?

1 comments

Posted 3:54 PM by magnu231
Maybe Posner Isn't That Crazy!

Civil Procedure over, I can now concentrate on the important stuff. Like interesting economic studies! Who knew that sexual orientation was receptive to prices? Economists, that's who! (although what that says about their prior knowledge seems problematic). Here you go.

http://www.freakonomics.com/pdf/AndyFrancisAIDS12-05.pdf

0 comments

Posted 11:35 AM by Jason
Ben Civiletti-$1000 an hour

Sure, he was AG, but it was in the Carter administration, does that really count?

0 comments

Posted 11:15 AM by Jason
Solomon Amendment part MMMDCXLII

Katherine Kersten in the Strib on the U’s relation to FAIR v. Rumsfeld. (ht Powerline) My favorite part:
The U Law School faculty voted overwhelmingly in March, reportedly with only one dissent, to join FAIR. Bryan Freeman, a third-year law student who has worked as an intern for the Army's Judge Advocate General Corps, objects. "The vote declared a political position for the Law School as a whole," he says. "But there was no meaningful student discussion. This isn't how contentious issues should be debated at a university."
Prof. Michael Paulsen, who says he was the one who voted against the resolution, agrees. "I find the Law School's policy to be deeply disrespectful of students who valiantly wish to serve their country in a military career," he said. "It is deeply disrespectful of the military itself. The Law School's policy is intolerant of dissent, and disrespectful of First Amendment values."
Paulsen said he disagrees with the government's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But he believes the Congress and the military officials who crafted the policy are the proper authorities to govern military affairs. "And if Mike Paulsen disagrees, so much the worse for him," he said.
Paulsen says the faculty wanted to have their cake and eat it too. They voted to join FAIR but not to join its suit, presumably, Paulsen says, out of fear of losing federal dollars. He calls the faculty's position "deeply shallow." It adopted a cowardly statement of political correctness, he adds, and balked at the idea of accepting any consequences. "The faculty said, 'We have our absolute principles. But they can be bought.' "

4 comments

Posted 7:42 AM by magnu231
This Is It!

Exam Season. Not the most fun ever. However, in a week and a half, I'll be able to relax. But for now I've got to get by CivPro. Ouch.

2 comments

Posted 12:07 AM by Jason
Lieberman for Sec-Def?

Although I will readily admit that I am not a huge fan of Sen. Joe Lieberman, I do have to respect him (you know, like liberals and Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chaffee, John McCain, Chris Shays, Christine Todd Whitman, you get the idea) for his willingness to buck the party line sometimes (and before you feel the need to comment to tell me that that’s only because I agree with him on this particular issue, save it, I know) on important issues. While I sincerely doubt that he is even being considered for Sec-Def, my prediction is that after he easily wins re-election next year he will become even more distant from his party, possibly to the point of a reverse Jeffords.

0 comments

Posted 4:30 PM by magnu231
Whooooo.....

Okay, maybe playing basketball for three hours before trying to study CivPro wasn't the brightest thing I've ever done. Then again, I don't expect that the CivPro final will be the brightest thing I've ever done either.

1 comments

Posted 3:43 PM by Jason
Burning Corn for Heat

This is really nothing new, so I have no idea why it’s the big story on Drudge right now. I doubt its really that beneficial for energy costs, but it still makes a heck of a lot more sense than ethanol.

0 comments

Posted 4:51 PM by magnu231
Hard News!

It's official (not that it was ever in doubt). Gwyneth Paltrow is an ignorant snob. And here's the evidence. Scan past the fact that this wayward female wants more children (which she will then ambiguously name after fruit/computers). Listen, I'm not for state control of much. However, the state absolutely should enforce birth control on this woman. Oh, and take Apple away from her. I'm probably overreacting. In fact, I take my last comments back. I'm saving that venom for idiots like Green Day whom people actually have some inkling of misguided respect for. If she wants to live in England, not here, that's all right. If she wants to take shots at us, that's okay too. She's an okay actress (nothing more), and she's not attractive. It's just hilarious how elitest Hollywood types get occasionally (e.g. Barbra Streisand, George Clooney, et all). Gwyn has decided to move to a country with a cool accent and all of a sudden they can do no wrong. As other sites have pointed out, some people make some money on mindless entertainment, and all of a sudden they're political wonks, intelligent observers, (see Sean Penn), and somehow their opinion counts. Of course, she's wrong. The British people, despite their rabid hatred of emotion, have a tendency to get torn up over things far more trite than the death of 3000 people (a few more than died on 7/7). Say, the death of an nasty, whorish, American Princess perhaps?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005560049,00.html

2 comments

Posted 10:58 PM by Jason
Coulter at UConn

Wow, talk about a war of ideas. My favorite part:

“Eric Knudsen, a 19-year-old sophomore journalism and social welfare major at UConn, didn't attend the speech.
"We encourage diverse opinion at UConn, but this is blatant hate speech," said Knudsen, head of Students Against Hate.”

Now, I read Ann, recreationally, but don’t take her too incredibly seriously; kind of like liberals and E.J. Dionne (note to humor impaired, that was a joke) That said, she gets a worse rap than she deserves. Another problem I have with the undergraduate left is the need to protest absolutely everything, and waste other people’s money in the process. The basic statement is “we don’t like what you’re saying, and not only do we not want to hear it, we don’t want anyone else to either” and that, my friends, is absolute b.s.

2 comments

Posted 10:38 PM by Jason
Climate Change Cont.

Here’s an interesting story on climate change treaty negotiations in the NYT.  Now, as you may have guessed, I am skeptical on the issue, which means I have my doubts as to:
1. whether or not any irregular climate change is occurring, 2. whether any change that is occurring is human caused, 3. whether or not any such change, whether it be human caused or not, would be as significant or as harmful as some projections would suggest.

That said, the article begins describing a plan for a joint DOE/ private energy company funded billion dollar emission-free coal fired power plant.  Well, I have to be skeptical about this too, but will acknowledge that if you accept global warming as true, it is a step in the right direction.

“Environmental advocates at the talks criticized the announcement, saying it was intended to distract from continuing efforts by the American delegation to block discussion of new international commitments to cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases that scientists link to global warming.’

Again, these “advocates” can talk all they want, their record is clear.  Kyoto is a failure, and would be even with U.S. participation.  The costs are significant, the benefits are not, and any attempt to expand its framework or make it workable would exacerbate either problem.  To the U.S., unilateralist bastards that we are, is prepared to sink a billion dollars in a public/private partnership to actually do something, and we’re the obstructers?
To that end:

“The United States should, at a minimum, refrain from blocking or obstructing such discussions amongst parties to the convention, since that would be inconsistent with its ongoing treaty obligations," said the letter, signed by Senators Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico; Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine; Lincoln Chafee, Republican of Rhode Island; and 21 colleagues.” [emphasis mine]

Oh wait, Olympia Snowe and Lincoln Chafee want us to play nice?  Ok, yes sir, yes ma’am!  Then again, neither the letter or the article cites any actual blocking or obstructing by the U.S.  Our chief negotiator’s statement was:

Mr. Watson said the United States opposed any new negotiations under the 1992 treaty. "We believe that it is best to address this complex issue through a range of programs and technology initiatives," he said.

Well said.  First and foremost, President Bush should remember that we already have a source of clean abundant energy, one that he cited in his campaigns, and one that would be almost guaranteed to give the UCS and the negotiators in Montreal all massive strokes.  Now if he could just learn how to pronounce it.

3 comments

Posted 2:47 PM by Jason
Inuits sue U.S. over global warming

Yeah, this will be tossed pretty quickly. You’d think they would be grateful.

UPDATE: Maybe I should have read more closely, turns out that what they seek is a declaration from some international outfit with no enforcement power.  To that end:

“The petition urges the Washington-based Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to declare the United States to be in violation of the 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.

It also wants the Commission to recommend that the United States adopt mandatory limits of its greenhouse-gas emission and join international efforts to curb global warming.
And it wants the Commission to declare the United States should help the Inuit adapt to unavoidable impacts of climate change.”

What’s more, the article (at the fault of the ICC, not Breitbart) claims that:

“Rising emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases primarily caused by burning fossil fuels are expected to warm the Arctic about 4-7 C (7.2-12.6 F), about twice the global average rise, over the next century, the ICC report concluded.”

Which, though it acknowledges this level of warming as particular to the Arctic, is still at the very least toward the steep end of the warming predictions currently circulating.

If scientists can respectably disagree on the issue of climate change, whether or not it is happening, the extent to which it is anthropogenic, etc… I think it would be preposterous for a pseudo-court to find proximate cause or cause in fact (or whatever sort of tests a pretend court might use) here.  If they want to pin it on not ratifying Kyoto, then I would have to point out that countries that did ratify Kyoto are not meeting their targets, and even if they had, and we had as well, the overall scheme of Kyoto is insufficient to effect the changes that its proponents seek.

At the base of it, this is more than likely a bunch of do gooder lawyers (and other do gooder types) exploiting a potential sob story to make a political statement using (emphasis on using) these Eskimos (yeah, that’s right, I said it).

2 comments

Posted 12:03 PM by magnu231
Serious Intellectual Debate

In honor of the discussion in the comments of one of my posts farther down (which I have no idea how to link to). Here's a link to a serious article critiquing a mainstay of the liberal movement. All liberals agree with the person critiqued, and this essay proves them universally wrong on any and all opinions they may have.

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200512071123.asp

0 comments

Posted 4:00 PM by Jason
We been dancin with Mr. Brownstone

This is pretty much insane.

0 comments

Posted 3:50 PM by Jason
Can we stop talking about Dean now?

Look, I really don’t feel the need to have a big discussion about Howard Dean, but here are some quotes with which you are probably familiar:
[The Republicans are] "a pretty monolithic party. They all behave the same. They all look the same. It's pretty much a white Christian party."
"The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people,"
"have never made an honest living in their lives."

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization."

[Tom Delay] "ought to go back to Houston where he can serve his jail sentence."

Gee, you just have to admire his dedication to debate on the issues.  I mean, why would he possibly want to sit down with Ken Mehlman and Tim Russert?

And like I said, he hasn’t been very good at the whole fundraising thing, which is kind of his job now.  Howlin’ Howie may be a bit of caricature, but there is no denying that it is at least partially of his own creation, and he hasn’t exactly done much to rebut that image either.

I didn’t want to start a debate on Dean’s patriotism, in fact, its barely interesting, but it is hardly new, and I can see how someone could make the charge and see evidence of it in the story that I linked, among others.

“I like Howie” vs. “what a nutjob” doesn’t really amount to anything except personal preference.  Me, I don’t much care for him.  My point was more “how is this man chair of the DNC”.

5 comments

Posted 11:15 AM by magnu231
Choosing One's Friends

I was over at the Daily Kos (thought I'd see how, what, or if the other side was thinking) and I found this delightful post, mentioning that "conservatives are only conservatives when they are in other conservatives good graces."
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/6/115552/051
First, I think that's interesting that conservatives are singled out. Last time I checked people only claimed as intellectual comrades those who agree with us. Plus, especially in politics, people love to disown those who embarress them, even when they are in complete agreement. Although I think Kos's source is totally off base here. First, as I've mentioned, everyone does it (though of course that doesn't make it right). When Howie Dean started getting crazy, the Dems weren't in a huge rush to defend him. And libs won't waste much time claiming unpopular allies. Also, I'd argue that a lot of times conservatives are too quick to defend other conservatives when they are wrong. One's beliefs do not excuse bad behavior. However, this is a good opportunity to clear something up. There are massive polarities in the conservative movement. You haven't experienced intellectual tussling till you've been to a conservative conference similar to the one I've attended for the last few years in D.C. The social conservatives argue with the libertarians who argue with the tax cutters, deficit hawks, isolationists and "neo-cons". The conservative movement is ridiculously broad-based, from libertarians to the religious right. It's inconceivable that such a movement would not result in huge debates, schisms, etc. And therefore it's natural that all sides would be claiming the term conservative and arguing that those who don't agree with them aren't, because there are many different interpretations of the term "conservatism". I, for example, don't consider Pat Buchanan a conservative, but a lunatic. He's against almost everything in my defintion of conservative, such as free trade, freedom from government interference in markets, etc. But if your definition of conservative is only "pro-life" (although that's not a bad thing), then he's conservative. One of the comments on this Kos Article notes that there is no healthy conservative debate, only hysterical and emotional shouting. I almost chuckled out loud right here in civ pro. Because the liberal movement (as I see it) is nowhere near as broad based, and yet there is more nitpicking over tiny things than the conservative movement. Also, although I'll admit that many Republicans (who in large part don't deserve the title conservatives) have degenerated into emotional "you're not a patriot" demagogues, they're only doing so as they move more and more into traditionally liberal territory. I appreciate the many liberals who are reasonable and civil and base their arguments on more than "my son died, or grandma has socks on her hands, etc". But I'm going to have to stop, because civpro is calling my attention. I might come back to this later.

14 comments

Posted 11:13 AM by Jason
-5 outside, why should I care?

Men are bad, as usual. Apparently this time we’re responsible for global warming. Think of it as atmospheric domestic violence. (ht Iain Murray)

0 comments

Posted 11:04 AM by Jason
I am so screwed

Former Stanford Law School Dean fails bar exam. (via Right Coast)

UPDATE: Ivan from Joint Strike Weasel points out to me that Kathleen Sullivan was one of the authors of our Con Law text. I didn’t, and don’t, mean to question her abilities, but rather the state of California.

0 comments

Posted 10:34 AM by magnu231
The Iraq Insurgency: Waning?

Interesting article here. You won't read this in the New York Times! (Although if you did, I wouldn't know, because I can't afford the Times, I can't figure out how to get it through Lexis, and every time I read their editorial page, my brain jumps out of my head and attempts to hide from the rampant ignorance that seeks to devour it). Anyway, here 'tis.

http://63.247.134.60/~pobbs/archives/002412the_rise_peak_decline_and_defeat_of_iraqs_insurgency.html

0 comments

Posted 10:36 PM by Jason
Re: Rising Body Count

And what’s more, Howard Dean, great patriot that he is (and how could anyone question that?!?), says that we can’t win. Though, interestingly, he now acknowledges that removing Saddam was a good thing.

5 comments

Posted 10:26 PM by magnu231
The Rising Body-Count

I'm still torn on the war in Iraq between the isolationism and protecting our national interests schools of thought. I don't like the "spreading freedom" rationale. I figure that if the Iraqis want peace, liberty, etc, they need to fight for it on their own. I also am not a huge fan of the preemptive strike, which can be dangerous thinking. However, I would say that Saddam was a threat. There was no doubt that he had WMD's at one time. There is no doubt that he was trying to resurrect his WMD program. How much success he had is not entirely clear. WMD's are very easy to hide, especially when we let a lot of stuff out of the country while we were invading. So I'm not entirely convinced there weren't any there. However, what a lot of conservatives are sick of is reflexive arguments without any coherent analysis on these issues. We can have a debate about how much of a threat Saddam was, whether that necessitated an invasion, whether diplomacy could have worked better, and whether the UN should have had a greater role (though those last two would be especially short arguments). But the knee jerk left too often operates on the principle that everything Bush does must be bad to begin with, that war is always wrong, and that there is no such thing as evil in the world (except for those whom one disagrees with on policy issues). Therefore the arguments against the war become mindless jingles "hey, no, we won't go", and the like. Bush is painted with the broad brush and the paint labeled "Nazi Green", the soldiers are portrayed as hapless and ocassionally evil pawns in a battle over oil, and no substantive debate is heard. That's why conservatives, including myself, are frustrated. The bodycount, as used in an argument, is a purely emotional number (especially when compared to the number in other wars, skirmishes, bad nights in Detroit, etc). But making policy on emotions is a dangerous game, and leads to impulsive and stupid decisions. So I'd like to hear some debate on the issue, certainly. Unfortunately vindictive and vituperative vitriol is what passes for debate these days, and our country and our political process certainly deserve better. (In my Humble Opinion).

1 comments

Posted 3:00 PM by Jason
Pretty much evidence that God exists

Barista, toss in a couple extra shots of espresso! (via Reuters, ht JNV at Volokh)

0 comments

Posted 11:46 AM by magnu231
Saddam: Southern Baptist Preacher!

And I say-uh. That you-uh, will-uh be the one judged-uh. You have no power over me. (Tikriti: Amen, Bombs Away!). Thus sayeth Saddam, I am not afraid to die-uh! You may cut my beard-uh, you may cut my neck-uh, but you shall NOT take away my....(thinks "crap, they have taken everything away, including my necktie")... legacy as a cruel dictator-uh (Tikriti: Give it to 'em). Though I die-uh, my spirit will live on. Where there is death, I am there-uh. Where there is enforced poverty of the masses to benefit an autocratic ruler, I am there-uh. Brothers and Sisters, the judge here is not legitimate. He represents everything I abhore-uh. Justice, Liberty, and Tolerance-uh. (Tikriti+ Preach it!). Brother Ramsey Clark will now proceed with his ongoing disgrace-uh of the legal profession.

0 comments

Posted 10:08 AM by Jason
Well, that's good

Saddam tells court he’s not afraid to die.

0 comments

Posted 9:54 AM by magnu231
NomChom

I find this interesting, especially since I consider that anti-semitism is a rising threat in our country, especially on the radical left, who use the epithet "neo-con" in many cases as a stand in for racial slurs against Jewish conservatives. (Although of course on the Pat Buchanan right, the problem is also mushrooming.) Here's an example of a person some people take seriously. In fact, he's become a "respected academic" who is quoted all the time on all manner of subjects. Strange that those stories don't note that Chomskey is famously sympathetic to those denying the holocaust, and anti-semitic, and especially anti-Israeli "thinkers" (with the broadest sarcasm possibly denoted by those quotation marks intended). Here's an interesting link. (Somewhat Legally Related!)

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/012448.php

0 comments

Posted 10:23 PM by Jason
The Onion explains

Oh, so that’s why the all the upper level students wear suits all the time, I get it now.

0 comments

Posted 9:56 PM by Jason
Ummmmm, yeah...

Simple, but very effective at wasting time.

0 comments

Posted 11:26 AM by magnu231
Insidious Laws... Of Supply and Demand!

Here's some commentary on the NYT's "the economy is actually bad, not good, and we're the only people who can see through the prosperity to the heart of the problem, GWBush" article. Hilarious.

http://www.slate.com/id/2131180/

0 comments

Posted 10:50 AM by Jason
DO NOT READ IN CLASS

This is absolutely hilarious, except those obviously posted by raging lefties who by their very nature are not allowed to laugh. My favorite: Cheney once killed Chuck "God" Norris with an elbow strike to his head. Cheney then put Chuck's corpse in an figure-four leglock, BECAUSE HE FELT LIKE IT.
(ht Jonah Goldberg on The Corner)

0 comments

Posted 9:20 PM by Jason
Internet Addiction

6-10% destructively dependant on the internet? Guilty! Probably more amenable to law school than hardcore alcoholism though. Also a plus: who needs a blackberry when you’re pretty much attached to a laptop?

0 comments

Posted 10:31 AM by Jason
Presidential Jury Duty

Come on W, do it! John Kerry did.

0 comments

Posted 7:06 PM by Jason
Morons

Despite having engaged in a little at Drake as an undergrad (take that Joan Jett!), I think the sign-waving and chanting method of demonstrating is generally pretty much worthless. Signs, songs, chants, woo hoo, aren’t you impressive? On a political issue, maybe, maybe you can have some effect, but it isn’t likely, since any argument gets reduced to something stupid, simple, and utterly incomplete. On a legal issue, seriously, how can you even think this would make a difference either way? Do these people think RBG is going to wake up one morning, see their signs and think “Oy vey! I’ve been so wrong!” Or Clarence Thomas deciding “you know what, to hell with the text, I’ll ask these people what they think” Oh well, its probably really just a way for them to raise funds for when it really matters.

Note: The link no longer works, the story that it linked to was about demonstrators on both sides of the issue (using the aforementioned signs, songs, chants, etc…) were doing their thing outside of the Supreme Court building because of the Ayotte case.

0 comments

Posted 12:11 PM by magnu231
NYT: Of Course Nothing's Going Well Here, Bush is Still President!

Some would say the economy is doing rather well. Some would say that things are looking up in Iraq. Some would say there actually is some good news to be found in various walks of life. But the Times puts a stop to those rumors. There is nothing good in the U.S. right now that could possibly be attributed to George W. The economy? Actually quite bad . Iraq? Vietnam. Of course! It stands to reason. Obviously anyone the Times dislikes on some issues must be universally bad for the country. Cindy Sheehan may complain about some pics taken of her, but there's no question in my mind that there is still a strong bent to the media, and it ain't against Sheehan and her ilk.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/29/business/29cnd-econ.html?ei=5065&en=cc6de7a6bcd8d048&ex=1133931600&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&adxnnlx=1133319896-xeBG9cMSHDGgSzVw6VqhTA&pagewanted=print

0 comments

Posted 9:41 AM by Jason
Solomon amendment debate rears its ugly head

David Bernstein had an interesting post on the Volokh Conspiracy last night on everyone’s favorite topic, the Solomon Amendment, tying the use of the coercive spending power under Solomon to its earlier use, enforcement of Title VI and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act.

0 comments

Posted 1:36 PM by magnu231
Joe "Liber"-man

Sorry, I had to go with the pun off the bat. This Wall Street Journal article is interesting. I know many (if not most) libs consider Lieberman a bit of a squish, but I still think his opinion is worth something. I think his piece is an interesting perspective on Iraq. Personally, I'm still torn on the issue of going to war in the first place. I think it was justified, but not necessarily the right thing to do . I for one am a little disturbed by the arguments stressing our justification in "freeing" the people of Iraq rather than protecting our own citizens. I don't think it is our government's responsibility to provide freedom, peace, and prosperity to non-citizens (or due process?). Anyway, I do think it's encouraging the good news that one hears from Iraq, if one ignores the conventional media.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611

0 comments

Posted 12:04 PM by Jason
BOOM BOOM, Out go the lights!

In just a few hours the John M. Olin Foundation will approve its last round of grants and figuratively turn off its lights for good. As I have mentioned before, the Olin Foundation played a role in the creation of the Federalist Society, as well as innumerable other bastions of conservative thought. John J. Miller has an article (and a book out soon) on the foundation in yesterday’s New York Times. Some may wish the foundation could stay around just a little while longer, but Mr. Olin’s will was explicitly otherwise. I think he would be proud of the strides made in his name, which have created a network for intelligent conservatism that can stand without the constant support of the foundation. In a sense, the metaphorical training wheels are off.

0 comments

Posted 10:57 AM by Jason
Re: Lucky

Jmag,
While I must confess to not being as well versed in Chambers’ actual writings as I should be, I have read a fair amount about him. What I find very interesting is that he enrolled at Western Maryland College at a relatively advanced age to study science, having been told by Arthur Koestler that he could not possibly understand the world without understanding science. I think his pessimism with respect to the march of communism, at least at that time (and with his health issues, I suppose it would be difficult to be all sunshine and daisies), was justified, and we can be thankful that at least on this he was wrong. Derbyshire’s pessimism though I usually find amusing, and he is one of those few political writers who also ventures fairly credibly into science.

0 comments

Posted 10:50 AM by magnu231
Rinos and Dinos.

I know I've posted an inordinate amount of NRO material, but this is too good to pass up. Like the late C.S. Lewis, I also mourn for the days of good old fashioned Believers, who sincerely thought their ideas were correct, and were willing to give their lifeblood for the cause. Those days are gone, and our politicians now believe in nothing but power, money, and electability. Debates are solely a function of "what the public will accept", and both parties are united in growing their own power through the federal government. I'll also included "Screwtape Proposes a Toast" for good measure.

http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200511280808.asp

http://www.seark.net/~jlove/screwtape.htm

0 comments

Posted 9:11 AM by magnu231
Lucky?

Great article by John Derbyshire here. He posits that he is part of the "luckiest" generation, missing all of the horrors of the 20th century, while perhaps dying before what he predicts to be the horrors of the 21st century. And I would agree with some of his conclusions (although not all). But I think he has perhaps fallen victim to the defeatism that comes with age, on occasion. Whit Chambers was one of my favorite writers, but it is now almost amusing to read the depths of despair that he fell to, and the gloom that he predicted would overtake human history. Communism has been beaten (perhaps temporarily), and we're living in what by almost any measure are the "good times" for the world in general. Sure I see the problems on the horizon, the looming welfare state, the corruption of the political system, the increasing morally bankrupt, lazy, and "soft", American populace, and of course the (again) rising threats of fascism, socialism, and religious terrorism. But let's not be defeatist. Previous generations have defeated threats that the generation before it (who had also defeated tremendous threats) never thought conquerable. Like Faulkner, I refuse to believe in the end of man (or America), at least until I am old, and existance becomes less tenable.

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200511230838.asp

0 comments

Posted 7:44 PM by Jason
My thanks

As a conservative, to me no list of thanks today would be complete without William F. Buckley, Jr., founder and longtime editor of National Review, who celebrates his 80th birthday today. Here are some remarks from Tim Geoghlin, deputy director of the Office of Public Liaison at the White House, at the official NR celebration last week.

2 comments

Posted 2:47 PM by magnu231
Things I'm Thankful For

I'm not going to go with a list of the usuals, although I'm thankful for them. Here's some unusual things I'm thankful for.

1. I'm thankful that the turkey isn't our national bird (sorry Ben Franklin).

2. I'm thankful for the irrational people on the other side of the political spectrum, because they make me look smart. I'm thankful for the irrational people on my side of the political spectrum, because they make me look reasonable.

3. I'm thankful that Miers didn't get nominated, and that Alito will.

4. I'm thankful that the Democrats are in shambles, and that the Republicans are turning into everything they've professed to hate, because that makes the possibility of a viable third party that much larger. (Go Libertarian!)

5. I'm thankful that I don't get the grades for 1st term for a while.

6. I'm thankful that in a month I'll be done with my first set of finals.

7. I'm thankful that my opinions are always right. What a gift!

0 comments

Posted 4:22 PM by Jason
Sports Arbitration

Thought this story on arbitration was interesting, mostly because I think Terrell Owens is pretty much worthless as a human being. Also because the NFL Players’ Association is just as worthless as an organization, at least for players on TO’s level, who can afford their own lawyers (since the Eagles were still paying him, just not allowing him to play). The union has now threatened to dismiss the arbitrator that upheld the team’s decision during their window to do so in the beginning of December because "His ruling ... ignores the obligation a club has to either provide employment to a player or allow him to play somewhere else. We are confident that we put in a winning case at the hearing last Friday, and we still believe Terrell Owens had a right to a legitimate reinstatement."
Forgive me if I shed no tears for Owens, I instead agree with Joe Theismann, who said, Obviously he won't be with the Eagles next season. He walked across that bridge with jet fuel and a lighter, and now there's no turning back.” I will admit to being absolutely clueless on the existence of any “right” of a player to play as long as he is still being paid under his contract, so I ask: Any ESLA people out there to comment?

0 comments

Posted 4:53 PM by magnu231
Once More, Into the Breach

The ID speaker today was interesting, but I think a bit off track. I don't think putting ID into the category of science is defensible, and trying to put it there tacitly accepts the other side's best argument that their position is scientific. Nobody, but nobody, has ANY scientific understanding of the beginning, either of matter, of life, of consciousness, etc. ID's have a philosphical explaination: someone or thing created these things. Evolutionists also have a philosophical explaination: these things were created by chance circumstances. Both are philosphical, and if one is taught, the other must be as well, but as philosophical points, not as scientific. Much of what is accepted as science today is simply philosophy with some fun facts to cite, but with no demonstrable causal connection. The vestigal organ debate? Philosophical. Intra-species change? Philosophical. I just wish scientists would stop pretending to be the be-all end all of rational knowledge in today's world. A lot of them work off biases and assumptions like everyone else, and then everything counts as evidence for their side, and anyone who disagrees with their philosophy is against progress, a superstitious fool, and blind to science. But, in the interests of intellectual honesty, I don't like IDers also fighting in this territory. They don't belong there either.

0 comments

Posted 9:28 AM by magnu231
Come on, Drudge.

Seriously. You can do better than this. Technical difficulties prove existence of liberal bias? Surely there's better evidence than that? Just look at the NYTimes. Every day. I'm sure you'll come up with something better.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3cnc.htm

0 comments

Posted 9:44 AM by magnu231
Racist Liberals? You're kidding.

I'm shocked. Surely these are not liberals attacking someone with whom they disagree not on the merits of their ideas, but on their skin color, appearance, family, etc. But they're tolerant! Oh, wait, being free from racist insults is one of the perks of joining the liberal "club". If you're not in the "club" you're fair game. I personally am not a big fan of Malkin all the time. I think she has the occasional tendency to stray into Coulter-land, valuing shock over substance, and bomb throwing over speaking the modest truth. However, this is unconscienable.

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003955.htm

8 comments

Posted 12:25 PM by Jason
Creative sentencing in Ohio

“Michelle Murray will now have the opportunity to experience what the dozens of kittens felt the night she abandoned them at two Lake Metroparks in September.”

0 comments

Posted 7:32 PM by Jason
pseudo-Celebrity DeathMatch! Wilson v. Woodward!

I just don’t have a side in this one, and that is rare enough to warrant a post.

0 comments

Posted 7:28 PM by Jason
Screaming for relevance: Sheehan found guilty

"I absolutely believe he has an obligation to meet with me," Sheehan said.

Wait, he already did. And I think that waving signs is a funny way to try to deliver petitions.

0 comments

Posted 7:20 PM by Jason
Rehashing last night, having fun at the expense of moronic undergrads

Jmag,
I must note that you just blew any anonyminity you had planned to maintain, but I did like the article.  Unfortunately for Provost Sullivan, the entering class may not be as bright as he thought.  I quote one Amelia Smith, a freshman (I changed that to freshman from “first year student” in the article, since she is probably the type who would be offended by the term freshman) and one of the protesters:

  “Yoo has helped to commit a lot of atrocities. I want to make sure that he knows he’s not welcome at my university.  In my eyes, he’s pretty much a criminal.”

Gee Amelia, glad to know you’re a judge, I could use a clerkship for the summer.

She apparently was a speaker and organizer at some sort of anti-war walkout last week.  It occurs to me that given her tactics, Miss Smith may have been one of the older members of the audience who appeared to have just recently stepped out of her 1967 haze.

Furthermore:
“As students paying for tuition, we want him to know that he isn’t welcome here.”

And what about all of the students on both sides that did welcome Professor Yoo?
Amelia, teach yourself something about funding at a large public university before you decide that you think your tuition dollars are paying for anything over in Mondale Hall.  Also, your debate style needs help, I mean, putting your hands over your ears and shouting “I can’t hear you!” just does not hold up.

As for my peers on the left, thank you for being respectful.  I think Sebastian Ellefson put it well “It seems an odd thing to express your free speech at the expense of others.  A bunch of us just came to learn.”

1 comments

Posted 6:22 PM by magnu231
Egregious Ego

This is just hilarious. I thought judges were monomaniacal, but they've got nothing on Congressmen apparently.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashch.htm

0 comments

Posted 2:09 PM by magnu231
More on Yoo

Interesting article here. And not just because I'm quoted.

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/11/17/66213

0 comments

Posted 11:59 AM by Jason
Ideologues?

Ed Whelan, as would be expected, goes further and does better with the Alito/RBG comparison than I have time to. Its a good read, a sample:
Twenty years ago, Alito expressed the view that there is not a constitutional right to abortion. From the day Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 until the present, many liberal scholars and commentators who support abortion as a matter of policy have been intensely critical of Roe. The view that Alito expressed twenty years ago is squarely in this broad tradition.
In 1977, 16 years before Clinton nominated her to the Court, Ginsburg strongly criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling in Maher v. Roe that the Constitution does not require taxpayers to fund abortions. The view that Ginsburg expressed was and is an extreme minority position. As her vote in Lawrence v. Texas shows, Ginsburg does not hesitate to overrule precedent that she disagrees with.

0 comments

Posted 11:00 AM by Jason
Commie chic

If Green Day went to Hungary, they could be arrested and sentenced to jail for a year for their little red stars. While I can see why Hungarians would ban communist and Nazi symbols given the history of oppression and abuse, I of course wouldn’t advocate the same here in the U.S. One question: Who’s the American Idiot now?

(for you clever folk who are itching to post “you”, save it, I already know)

0 comments

Posted 10:09 PM by Jason
Its not you, its me

Ivan over at Joint Strike Weasel thinks I was making fun of him (or his hat) in my previous post. Sorry Ivan, I wasn’t referring to anyone in particular, just the general state of things. And I wanted to mention that P.J. O’Rourke is still alive. Wait, I forgot to mention that. He is.
On the other hand, he apparently thinks we’re interesting enough to read, so that’s a plus. As to the issue of this blog being possibly more political than legal, well, I can only argue that often times the issues intersect to a great deal, as with the Alito nomination. There’s also the fact that a lot of our laws are made by politicians, which I personally see as very consistent with the Fed-Soc’s purpose. We may disagree as to which politicians at which level, but rule by judges is, I would think, I pretty common distaste. It is simply too hard and too tunnel-visioned to draw the line, something I have a hard time with. Kind of like Congress (and the Court for that matter) and the Commerce Clause.

1 comments

Posted 9:42 PM by magnu231
The Closing of a Mind

"For in the absence of debate unrestricted utterance leads to the degradation of opinion. By a kind of Gresham’s law the more rational is overcome by the less rational, and the opinions that will prevail will be those which are held most ardently by those with the most passionate will. For that reason the freedom to speak can never be maintained merely by objecting to interference with the liberty of the press, of printing, of broadcasting, of the screen. It can be maintained only by promoting debate." Walter Lipman.

My thoughts on the debate tonight are many and somewhat jumbled in places. Forgive me in advance if this comes off like one of my more unsuccessful legal writing assignments. First, I'd like to thank those who were there to learn, to debate, to dissent, to reason, and above all to respectfully learn about an opposing view. As you may know, if you search my prior posts, I personally came into the debate tonight rather opposed to Yoo's constitutional view. Unfortunately, I did not get much of a chance to hear a debate. The frenzy of a few people drove reason from the building, and left the hippies, foaming at the mouth, against the rest of the people. It obviously united the speakers. There was no substantive debate on the issues, because the opposition to Yoo had to continually defend him from scurrilous claims of everything vile. That took away from my education on the issue. In fact, it put me on Yoo's side, too, regardless of my views. The man wrote a legal memo on a legal issue, not a moral issue. It was obvious that few in the crowd could even hope to compete with him on intellectual grounds, so they retreated to the more defendable ground of epithets, interruptions, and the most ridiculous costumes I've seen in quite some time.

I'm not really going to deal much with the substantive issues that were raised (few as they were). I will mention that Yoo did have some good points that I had not thought. I'll also mention that I was happy to have heard of most of the cases presented on both sides. Charles did a good job preparing us. And all of the law students I saw were remarkably respectful and courteous, leaving the greasy, aging, hippies to protest. I knew it was going to be confrontational, when I saw a protestor outside in the freezing cold, manfully holding some sort of sign accusing Yoo of playing Zed to Bush's Maynard. (Actually that would have been the most intelligent and entertaining metaphor of the night, most protestors actually stuck to the tried and true "torturor, murderer, babykiller, etc" epithet.) I was sitting in the back, and was constantly struck by the humor of seeing women who looked vaguely similar to my grandma, sternly standing in orange jumpsuits either raising signs, or displaying wires they'd cut from their curling irons hanging from their hands. I was hedged before and aft by foul smelling do-gooders with no idea of the substantive law, just opinions based on articles in the People's World Weekly, who would pull out the occasional note card and launch into some poorly worded attack on...something. I couldn't understand what they were saying most of the time, but their preparation shamed me somewhat, especially compared to my prep work for most con law work. I need to work on having less knowledge but more vitriol packed into my responses to Charles' questions, I think. A simple "I'm not sure", or "I don't know", are certainly inferior to a strong "BABYKILLER!" The protestors usually spoke loudly but incoherently, until the University police, doubtless happy at the break from escorting tipsy frat boys, and vomiting sorority girls back to their various places of abode. One particularly entertaining bald man in front of me made me fear for his sanity. Whenever he'd disagree with a point (including with ones that were absolutely factual, such as legal precedents), he'd expansively shake his head, looking similar to my golden retriever's tail when he sees me return from a long absence. He also murmured something about the "bombing of Dresden" sagely under his breath, as if it were the definitive answer to John Yoo's point on Hamdi and Ex Parte Quirin. People were irate after the speech to find that none of their questions were read. The angry cry went up, "Those are all law student questions!" To which I noted to myself that last time I had checked, this was a law school event, sponsored by law students, and primarily for law students. The funny thing was that much of the yelling and interrupting and anger would probably have qualified as torture if it had been done to any prisoner currently in custody.

I went and thanked Yoo, his counterpart, and the police, afterward. I should have thanked the protestors. They contributed to one of the most entertaining evenings I've had in quite some time, and certainly my most entertaining experience at the law school, even passing the occasionally mediocre professor talent show. I admit that I was frustrated at the lack of knowledge I recieved. Actually, who am I kidding? I loved the spectacle. A good fight always gets my juices flowing. Also, it crystalized the debate for me (although not necessarily in a good way). I realize that although we focus on reason here at the law school, I will perhaps run into a similar crowd, substituing invective for insight, and vituperation for vigorous intellectual debate. I hope in that case that I will comport myself as well as did the speakers for tonight, as well as the various students who tried to calm the crowd down in order to learn.

0 comments

Posted 8:34 PM by Jason
Debate Update

For those of you who were not able to attend the debate this evening, you didn’t miss much. I can’t say that the participants did poorly, only that it was hard to pay attention thanks to the presence of some “free speech advocates” (dressed in orange and gagged, by themselves, now that’s irony) who were there to ask us why we were letting Prof. Yoo speak, though in much less polite terms. Shameful.

UPDATE:
Scott Johnson over at Powerline attended the debates this evening, and mentions in his post the antics of the “leftover left”. He doesn’t, however, mention that to the best of my (or anyone else’s) knowledge the disruptors were NOT students of our law school. As an alumnus of our institution, I would have thought that he would have mentioned that fact. I mean, we have our share of radicals, but I will give them the benefit of not being complete morons, until proven otherwise.

0 comments

Posted 3:56 PM by Jason
Hat-equitte

I have noticed that a lot of men (I will refrain from commenting on women, as rules for women’s hats are, unsurprisingly, beyond all comprehension) wear hats (though I rarely if ever do, partly because my head is shaped funny, and is huge, and is covered by an insurmountable mass of hair) in class. I know it seems a little high school, but would it kill you to take the hat of in class? Wear a hat in a courtroom and the judge will bench-slap you. Ditto on legislative chambers. While our classrooms, certainly not those here in Mondale Hall, are neither of these, I don’t think that it would be a bad idea to take it off. After all, a hat serves absolutely no purpose indoors to begin with. Need to keep your head warm? Sun out of your eyes? No. While I am not nearly as anti-hat as P.J. O’Rourke, who famously wrote “A hat should be taken off when you greet a lady and left off for the rest of your life. Nothing looks more stupid than a hat.” I think that wearing a hat in class looks ridiculous. Outdoors, hallway, even the library, ok, fine, wear it. We all know you’re going bald anyway. (joking, joking)

0 comments

Posted 12:33 PM by Jason
Punk-er than thou

Though I am generally averse to listening to what celebrities have to say about politics, Jmag’s reference to Green Day reminded me of this article from the Washington Times on Johnny Ramone. “When Johnny Ramone tells you something is uncool, well, it is.”

0 comments

Posted 11:51 AM by Jason
The Fourth Estate screams

The New York Times, that bastion of truth, integrity, and intelligence, has an editorial up about Justice Alito (yeah, I’m going to go ahead and start calling him that now). Yes, yes, its on the memo from his job application to join the Justice Department under Ed Meese during the second Reagan term. Here are the bare arguments, to get all of their “nuance” you’ll have to read the whole thing:

First, he has extreme views on the law.
Second, Judge Alito does not respect precedent.
Third, he is an ideologue.

Well super, add that all up and what do we find out? The NYT opposes Alito because they think he opposes abortion. If that makes him unqualified, they better call up their buddies Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and start up some impeachment proceedings for a few of the justices we have sitting now. The ideologue charge is related to his statement that he is a life long conservative and republican, and that, horror of horrors, he may have acted on his beliefs. The problem with this charge, aside from the RBG standard, is that it has nothing to do with how he will act as a judge. Precluding people that have strong beliefs from serving on the court would be idiotic at best, actual neutrality of beliefs is not a commendable position. Regarding his lack of respect for precedent, the Times refers to Clarence Thomas as an example of claiming to respect precedent and then violating it. An appeals court judge is bound to follow precedent, the SCOTUS is not so much, applying a looser conception of stare decisis. If it didn’t, and the Court couldn’t correct its own errors, well, we would live in a Plessy v. Ferguson world. The Times ignores the fact that in his Casey dissent, Alito was merely trying to follow his predecessor’s “undue burden” test. Ed Whelan does a nice job comparing Alito and O’Connor here. As to his “extreme views”, the Times does little but note that Alito was proud of working on cases where he agreed with the issues. How dare he.

Their final note on the memo is that it is “Equally alarming is the notion that he fudged the truth to tell a potential employer what it wanted to hear.”

Well, I guess the Times could set a good example by going through their reporter pools and firing everyone who claimed in an interview that they wanted to work for things like “truth.”

0 comments

Posted 11:50 AM by magnu231
People's Weekly World

I've noticed that someone's been dropping off this fine publication every now and then here at the law school. I also noticed that nestled in between the positivity that the "people" believed was resulting from every negative thing that happens to everyone else, was an interesting item. The paper covered the celebration of the Russian Revolution, and had pictures of "veterans" marching to celebrate the rise of the most repressive regime of all time (and sorry Green Day, that regime is represented by the red stars you wear on your idiot "punk" clothes, not the leader of the country in which you have the freedom to spew your idiot "punk" slogans, stirring up the junior high brats who want to rebel, but are afraid to do it against their parents. Sometime I'm going to do a whole entry on Green Day.) Anyway, the article also mentioned that the revolution was the "foundation for modern society". So that's why there's so much poverty and violence and hatred in the world today! I was wondering, but it turns out that society is based on communism, and communism has died, so apparently (by the logic of the PWW), human society in general must be dying too. Interesting.

0 comments

Posted 10:32 AM by Jason
Debate Tonight

The Federalist Society is putting on a debate tonight here at 7pm in room 25 on “Presidential War Powers and the War on Terror”, should be interesting. There’s a piece in the Star Tribune on the issue here, and the guys over at Powerline add a few comments here. Should be an interesting event, and unlike some other groups here at the law school, our events are open to the public.

0 comments

Posted 10:57 AM by magnu231
"Cool Mom"?

Time to take a break from the soft news, cast lightly aside such ephemera as avian flu, foreign policy, various indictments, Alito, etc for some meaty fare. What am I talking about? Why the Mom who gave meth, pot, and alchohol to her daughter's high school friends of course! If you want to see an unbelievable example of the erosion of personal responsibility in this society, check out her excuses. http://www.9news.com/acm_news.aspx?OSGNAME=KUSA&IKOBJECTID=8fc1ee8a-0abe-421a-0156-6b5ec9b1880b&TEMPLATEID=0c76dce6-ac1f-02d8-0047-c589c01ca7bf

1. "I have bipolar." I suppose this might be true. I don't know. It sounds mighty suspicious, however. Every bipolar person I've ever met or heard of usually doesn't manifest it in binge drinking with kids 25 ages her junior, but in running around barefoot, and wearing too much makeup, or lousing up the Vikes draft for Denny Green. I think there's too much of a tendency in the law to let up on people who have "problems". Of course she had some sort of emotional or mental problem, or else she wouldn't have done what she did. However, that shouldn't absolve her from the consequences, in my humble opinion.

2. "I always wanted to be popular, and this was my chance." Sure, there are a lot of people who weren't spectacularly popular in high school. But not all of those people are now obsessing about it to the degree of this woman. Get over it! Everyone has probably felt isolated or lonely or unpopular at some time or other, even those who are to all appearances quite popular. That doesn't mean anyone who's ever felt this way is justified or even partially excused in buying meth for high school kids, and then getting in their pants, which leads me to...

3. "It's the double standard". I agree that there's a bit of a double standard here, but it's actually in favor of this undeserving woman. The woman was bothered by the fact that "if a man does it, he's a stud, if a woman does it, she's a slut." Guess what. If a man was passing out alchohol and drugs in order to take advantage of fifteen year old girls in his house, he would be in far deeper than this woman. He'd be headed for the grey bar hotel and probably would have a waiting list for his "favors" once he got there. (Child molestors are not popular in prison, or rather, more popular than they'd like to be. Or so I've heard). This woman in all probability, however, was the "cool mom". And she is more to be pitied than censured. In some sense that's probably because we'd expect the forty year old guy to be more likely to be a predator than this woman. That shouldn't mean that she's absolved from her egregious behavior. That should just mean we are more aware that people like this exist in the world.

0 comments

Posted 2:56 PM by Jason
BBC must be French for BS

Ok Jacques, “resurgence” wink wink, we get it. You’re not trying to appease them, just keep it from happening “again.”
Cracking down on illegal immigration? Facist
You know, if France had any sort of economy, their president wouldn’t have to create jobs for all of these thugs.
Of course, the plan is to train them over a year from now.

0 comments

Posted 12:20 PM by magnu231
Torture

Torture seems to be the topic of the week. John Yoo is coming to the U, Nick Coleman had a pretty harsh piece last week on Professor Delahunty from St Thomas law school (a good man), the topic was dealt with at length in my conlaw class, and my classmate at generic heretic had a blog entry (http://genericheretic.blogs.com/generic_heretic/) on the difference between a Wall Street Journal editorial on torture and an Economist editorial on the same subject. He (generic heretic) wondered out loud why it was even a debate. Rather than replying on his site, I figured I'd use this site to reach out to the literally ones of people who view us everyday and briefly deal with this topic.

I find it interesting that the Democrats, long opponents and deriders of the "simplicity" of conservative beliefs, (a topic apparently being pontificated on right now by some speaker here at the U), revert to at least as, and probably more egregious, moralizing self-aggrandizement whenever their ox is being gored. The question appears to be rather philosophical and revolves around the old debate over liberty and security. To put it in plainer terms, it’s the debate between what is right and what is necessary. The question of whether torture is a moral one. Personally, I’m against it, mostly on usefulness grounds, although the concept and indeed the mere word offend my moralistic sensibilities. However, that doesn’t immediately mean that any who are for it are monsters. Utilitarians have long argued that the real cruelty is in allowing injustice to come to many by reason of refusing to administer injustice to some. And as cold-hearted as this may seem, we all use this logic occasionally, especially in the law. Everyone knows that innocent people occasionally are sent to prison, but we accept some measure of justice to prevent the greater injustice of either sending nobody to prison or spending too much of the money of the taxpayers.

Now the administration argues that to prevent the harm of terrorism coming to the citizens of the U.S. is a worthy goal. There is no doubt that this is correct (except among some of those on the left who feel it is our “penance” for ignoring the world and daring to associate with Israel). They also claim that sometimes some form of torture is necessary for preventing this terrorism. This is certainly an arguable claim, and as such, needs to be debated. But both sides seem to have side-stepped this issue in the race to the moral high ground. Apparently you’re either a lily-livered liberal who won’t Do What It Takes to protect the U.S., and as such, are a traitor, or you’re a Goebbels-esque madman, dragging out the torture tongs for some sort of sadistic self satisfaction. Although I for the most part disagree with the former, the smug self-satisfaction and “holier than thou” attitude of the latter makes me even more peevish.

I don’t disagree that sometimes in protecting a nation, one’s hands must get dirty. The nuclear bombing of Japan was necessary I believe. As I said before, however, I don’t like the idea of torture. But the reflexive attitude of many of those on the left has left me cold. Their attitude seems to be “if America does it, it must be wrong” (although of course I’m generalizing). Like the U.N. Human Rights Council (and almost every other useless organization of that August institution), America’s actions are held up to strict critique while those of our enemies, or even our friends, are ignored as “cultural” or “expected” or “not as bad”.

But I fear I’m getting off on one of my anti-UN tangents. To wrap up, I’m a bit torn on the subject, and can probably be convinced either way. At this time I’m leaning against the use of torture in interrogation, but then again I was the one applauding when Jack Bauer broke a suspect’s finger on 24. Mainly I’m against the self-serving righteousness employed by both sides, but hypocritically employed by the left, who claim to despise the very type of argument they are here making.

3 comments

Posted 10:08 AM by magnu231
Politics and the Court

I think it's interesting that most of the opposition to Alito has fallen into one of two categories. First is the political attack disguised as an attack on credentials or some other feature of Alito the man. However, this attack has been given pretty short shrift by everyone. Democrats are left with the "liberals should vote against Alito because he's a far-right, activist judge, who doesn't unite the country", which of course, translated into out of poli-speech means, "he's against abortion, and we don't like that." Such a blatant political argument is quite a political boon for the Republican party, however. Democrats feel the need to rally their base, which, apart from the absurdly disconnected-from-reality-left, is not really rallying, feeling perhaps the battle is, in this case, to the strong, and feeling no particular need to rally. The real problem the Democrats have, of course, is that most observers realize the enormous hypocrisy of their position (a position they are not infrequently in, as some new book that my Dad is currently reading points out). They were all for Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, both of whom had similar if not inferior credentials to Alito. And no one could accuse Ginsburg or Breyer of moving the country to the middle, unless you're as far left as some are, and think the middle is allowing Christians to remain in the country. They don't seem to realize that not only would overturning Roe not make abortions illegal, but that half of the country would like to see abortions made illegal, that there is another side to the issue, and that the president, as Clinton did, has a right to appoint a Justice as he sees fit. Of course the President will feel political pressures when appointing someone, as he should, and as he did with Miers, an incident I think is a great representation that political power can sometimes be leveraged by those with only a computer in front of them and not a whole lot of money behind them. But I've gone a bit afield. I simply mean to say that the Democrats have very little to go on, which is why at this moment somewhere, someone liberal is doubtless rummaging through every corner of Alito's work, life, family background, etc looking for some reason to keep someone who may have a different view from sitting on the bench.

0 comments

Posted 8:44 AM by Jason
Newdow

Mike, we get it, you’re an atheist. If “In God We Trust” excludes atheists, how does he keep paying his lawyers?

0 comments

Posted 8:39 AM by Jason
Update

Here is the Washington Times piece Drudge was scooping, that discusses Alito’s application to become deputy assistant to Ed Meese in the Reagan Justice Department.

0 comments

Posted 11:33 PM by Jason
Oh SNAP!

Drudge has the siren up:
Alito rejected abortion as a right; paper shows personal view... Developing...
Thanks Matt, now we get to hear Ralph Neas run his mouth all day long, and no doubt endure a new round of talking points against this eminently qualified judge.  Sure, Pat, Jerry, and James will dig this, but really, how much do they ever help anything?
As I have said before, what some people have trouble understanding is that abortion will not become instantly illegal if Roe is overturned.  The left promotes the view that it would be, because they know they will be impotent when it comes to taking the fight to the state legislatures.  Sure, states like New York and Connecticut (and Minnesota) will probably continue to allow abortion on demand, but others will not.  If the Republicans in the House and Senate are smart, they will take the opportunity to shut their mouths and not act on such an overturn (if, and it is a HUGE if, it ever occurs), emphasizing that the proper level for decision on this issue is beneath them.

A point to ponder:
I would guess that liberal/leftist advocacy groups put far more effort into defending the Constitutional “right” created by Roe than the NRA et al. put into defending a right that is in the Constitution pretty explicitly, yet the NRA gets ridiculed.

0 comments

Posted 10:49 PM by Jason
Deplacez-vous, rien a voir ici

Move along, nothing to see here. And by the way, the riots are dying down, even if, you know, they torched 2 schools and dozens of cars…

0 comments

Posted 1:08 PM by Jason
They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the mornin

At the eleventh hour, of the eleventh day, of the eleventh month of 1918, the guns of August 1914 finally fell silent.

Today is Veteran’s Day, originally known as Armistice Day. Memorial Day always gets more attention, because people get the day off, though most do little to nothing in recognition of it. Veteran’s Day has gone the way of George Washington’s Birthday, still an official holiday on the books, but hardly recognized, supplanted by the urge to celebrate more modern figures. Here in the U.S. that takes the form of schools giving students off for ridiculous occasions like Caesar Chavez Day, but not Columbus Day, not President’s Day (which, by the way, is still George Washington’s Birthday on the books, and I am of the opinion that titans like Washington and Lincoln deserve their own days). In Britain Red Ken Livingstone wants to add a statue of Nelson Mandela to Trafalgar Square, since apparently Admiral Horatio Nelson is no longer important enough. Am I arguing for more days off? No, in fact I think it entirely proper to go about our work, because the day is, at its core, a celebration of the work and sacrifice of others that allows us to do what we do. If you happen to be a communist/socialist/other crazed radical, do the world a favor and take the day off. As I said, I think too often we roll things together out of convenience, which in a way diminishes our societal consciousness of them and diminishes our respect for what has made us who we are as a nation, and for western civilization. My solution, offered only for the sake of not complaining without any idea of what would be better, would be to split the conglomerated holidays, celebrate each in its proper place in a proper way. Oh, and cancel Labor day.

There has been plenty to celebrate and remember this week, with Wednesday marking the fall of the Berlin Wall, yesterday being the Marine Corps’ 230th birthday, and today as Veterans’ Day. There are plenty of remembrance pieces on the web today, read one, read five, whatever, just do something.

0 comments

Posted 4:14 PM by Jason
Movementarians

I could be accused of posting links to National Review’s website far too often, but that would require that we actually have readers.  Too bad.  National Review, to a large extent, is conservatism.  Not that this is to the exclusion of the Weekly Standard, the American Spectator, Human Events, the American Enterprise, Commentary, or even the American Conservative, (not to mention the numerous think tanks, blogs, etc…) it just happens to be my preferred “brand” in most cases.

That said, here are some more links:
Mac Owens, a Marine, an associate dean of academics and professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College, has an excellent tribute to the Marine Corps on its 230th birthday.  For my part I will be sure to raise a glass to the Corps at some point this evening.

John J. Miller, National Review’s national political reporter, is writing a book on the John M. Olin Foundation and how it helped propel the modern conservative movement.  He is interviewed for NRO here.  This is of particular interest to Fed-Soc members, because the Foundation funded the original meeting that spurred the creation of the society, with some accidental help from National Review.

And in an attempt to convince myself that I can read other things, here is a decent article from the New York Times on the first few weeks of the Roberts court.

0 comments