Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
"When I arrived back in 2001 I found 10,000 lawyers in the Department of Defense."
Says Donald Rumsfeld:
They're there at every level. We live in an enormously litigious society and the Congress contributes to that. As a result, there's practically no step that's made by anyone in the Pentagon and in the Department of Defense where they do not take into account the legal implications and consult lawyers about it....
There's a pattern in the department, at the top level, the chairman and the chief and the Joint Chiefs will recommend some rules of engagement for a certain circumstance. It will then be sent down the chain of command and it will get to the next command level, maybe the Combatant Commander, and the Combatant Commander will look at it, and then he will not want to violate it. So he might take a little tuck in it. And then it goes down to the next level. And it's got now it's in a country commander. And he looks at it and he doesn't want to break the rule so he takes a little tuck in it. You end up with four or five layers down there taking tucks and you end up with some rules of engagement that don't look like what the chairman of the Joint Chiefs or the Joint Chiefs of Staff or even the Combatant Commander intended. Now why is that? Well, it's fear. It's because of our litigious society. It's because of Congress overseeing things and having hearings.
The Westboro Baptist Church wins in the Supreme Court in the case about protesting at a soldier's funeral.
"The First Amendment shields Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case."
Chief Justice Roberts writes the opinion, with only Justice Alito dissenting. Justice Breyer has a concurring opinion. From the Roberts opinion:
AND: Alito, the lone dissenter, stresses the value of the tort called "intentional infliction of emotional distress":
Chief Justice Roberts writes the opinion, with only Justice Alito dissenting. Justice Breyer has a concurring opinion. From the Roberts opinion:
The picketing was conducted under police supervision some 1,000 feet from the church, out of the sight of those at the church. The protest was not unruly; there was no shouting, profanity, or violence....Clearly, this is the right outcome.
Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underly- ing the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). Indeed, “the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 574 (1995)....
Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here— inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield West- boro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.
AND: Alito, the lone dissenter, stresses the value of the tort called "intentional infliction of emotional distress":
Respondents’ outrageous conduct caused petitioner great injury, and the Court now compounds that injury by depriving petitioner of a judgment that acknowledges the wrong he suffered.Breyer's short concurrence makes the point that the decision is limited to in-person picketing about matters of "public concern." In adding that the Court "does not examine in depth the effect of television broadcasting" and "internet postings," I get the sense that he's looking ahead to cases about bullying.
In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner.
Chief Justice Roberts teaches a language lesson: "The noun 'crab' refers variously to a crustacean and a type of apple, while the related adjective 'crabbed' can refer to handwriting that is 'difficult to read'..."
"... 'corny' can mean 'using familiar and stereotyped formulas believed to appeal to the unsophisticated,' which has little to do with 'corn,' ('the seeds of any of the cereal grasses used for food'); and while 'crank' is “a part of an axis bent at right angles,' 'cranky' can mean 'given to fretful fussiness."
And the point is, a corporation may be a "person" within the meaning of the Freedom of Information statute, but that doesn't mean it's gets in on the "personal" privacy referred to elsewhere in the statute.
IN THE COMMENTS: rhhardin said:
And the point is, a corporation may be a "person" within the meaning of the Freedom of Information statute, but that doesn't mean it's gets in on the "personal" privacy referred to elsewhere in the statute.
[I]n ordinary usage, a noun and its adjective form may have meanings as disparate as any two unrelated words. ...Crisply explained!
"Person" is a defined term in the statute; “personal” is not. When a statute does not define a term, we typically “give the phrase its ordinary meaning.”... “Personal” ordinarily refers to individuals. We do not usually speak of personal characteristics, personal effects, personal correspondence, personal influence, or personal tragedy as referring to corporations or other artificial entities. This is not to say that corporations do not have correspondence, influence, or tragedies of their own, only that we do not use the word “personal” to describe them.
Certainly, if the chief executive officer of a corporation approached the chief financial officer and said, "I have something personal to tell you," we would not assume the CEO was about to discuss company business. Responding to a request for information, an individual might say, "that’s personal." A company spokesman, when asked for information about the company, would not.
IN THE COMMENTS: rhhardin said:
While he's got the FCC's attention, mention that the "fucking" in "fucking brilliant" is not an adjective.Ha! He's referring to this FCC opinion:
The complainants allege that the licensees named in their respective complaints aired the “Golden Globe Awards” program, during which the performer Bono uttered the phrase “this is really, really, fucking brilliant,” or “this is fucking great.”..."Fucking" can be an adjective, as in "You're a fucking crank," "Watch out for the fucking crab," or "I can't believe you're serving fucking corn again," but in the Bono boast, it's a fucking adverb.
The word “fucking” may be crude and offensive, but, in the context presented here, did not describe sexual or excretory organs or activities. Rather, the performer used the word “fucking” as an adjective or expletive to emphasize an exclamation. Indeed, in similar circumstances, we have found that offensive language used as an insult rather than as a description of sexual or excretory activity or organs is not within the scope of the Commission’s prohibition of indecent program content.
Jane Russell...
... has died, at the age of 89. I love her in "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes," and I'm choosing, for this tribute, the courtroom scene — in which she's impersonating Marilyn Monroe (for some elaborate reason). Her testimony includes physical evidence:
"The fundamental theory of liberty... excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only."
"The child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925).
That's a quote that always jumps out at my when I start into the right of privacy materials in Constitutional Law II, which is what I'm doing this afternoon. The state of Oregon required parents to send their children to public school, and the Supreme Court said they had a substantive due process right to pick private school.
Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925).
That's a quote that always jumps out at my when I start into the right of privacy materials in Constitutional Law II, which is what I'm doing this afternoon. The state of Oregon required parents to send their children to public school, and the Supreme Court said they had a substantive due process right to pick private school.
The Supreme Court rejects an assertion of a right under the Confrontation Clause — and the 2 dissenters are Ginsburg... and Scalia.
This was a case about the "excited utterances" exception to the hearsay rule of evidence. Richard Bryant, convicted of second degree murder, was identified in a statement made to the police. Justice Scalia writes:
The Framers could not have envisioned such a hollow constitutional guarantee. No framing-era confrontation case that I know of, neither here nor in England, took such an enfeebled view of the right to confrontation....
Judicial decisions, like the Constitution itself, are nothing more than "parchment barriers," 5 Writings of James Madison 269, 272 (G. Hunt ed. 1901). Both depend on a judicial culture that understands its constitutionally assigned role, has the courage to persist in that role when it means announcing unpopular decisions, and has the modesty to persist when it produces results that go against the judges' policy preferences. Today's opinion falls far short of living up to that obligation — short on the facts, and short on the law.
Erwin Chemerinsky says those other law schools are "remarkably resistant to change."
It's the Dean of the new UC-Irvine Law School, speaking at a "Future of Legal Education" symposium:
Nothing like using other people's money to play out your expansive, innovative ideas. Except clinics and simulations are very old ideas. Cf. "high-speed" rail.
God forbid we should do what's "cost-effective."
By the way, what is "hands-on, interdisciplinary study"? Do we get to fondle a sociologist?
You know what I would love in a new school — one that "wasn't bound by decades of tradition"? A deliberate decision to embrace tradition. Let's get a bunch of tough Socratic lawprofs in front of a classroom of students. And that's it. Perfectly cost-effective. You can save money on admissions too by going old-school. Make it an old-fashioned GPA/LSAT meritocracy (and flunk them out if they don't perform).
If you're a prospective law student, do you want to go to my new traditionalist school or to Chemerinsky's place? Is that because the tuition will be way lower or because you think that would be a better education? If you're an employer of law grads, do you want New Traditionalist grads or Chemerinsky grads?
One reason schools are sticking with a familiar playbook: "It's a cost-effective method of education," Mr. Chemerinsky said. "Putting one professor in front of a large group of students is very efficient." Clinical classes and simulations, which require low student-to-faculty ratios, cost more, he said.Chemerinsky made a funny. No report of the volume of the laughter in the room.
Because his own law school wasn't bound by decades of tradition, Mr. Chemerinsky said, he and the founding faculty members were able to do some things differently, like stressing hands-on, interdisciplinary study across all three years.
Asked by an audience member how the school could afford to do that, he answered, "It starts with having to charge ridiculous levels of tuition."
Nothing like using other people's money to play out your expansive, innovative ideas. Except clinics and simulations are very old ideas. Cf. "high-speed" rail.
God forbid we should do what's "cost-effective."
By the way, what is "hands-on, interdisciplinary study"? Do we get to fondle a sociologist?
You know what I would love in a new school — one that "wasn't bound by decades of tradition"? A deliberate decision to embrace tradition. Let's get a bunch of tough Socratic lawprofs in front of a classroom of students. And that's it. Perfectly cost-effective. You can save money on admissions too by going old-school. Make it an old-fashioned GPA/LSAT meritocracy (and flunk them out if they don't perform).
If you're a prospective law student, do you want to go to my new traditionalist school or to Chemerinsky's place? Is that because the tuition will be way lower or because you think that would be a better education? If you're an employer of law grads, do you want New Traditionalist grads or Chemerinsky grads?
New Media Meade catches protesters leaving the Capitol and the scene outside — including the scoop from police that anyone who wants to stay will be allowed.
Video by Meade, edited by me — all done today...
0:01 — People line the front walk of the State Street exit to the Capitol, preparing to honor the protesters who file out after the building is closed, as promised, at 4 p.m.
0:30 — Protesters file out to the chant of "Thank You... Thank You..."
1:45 — Meade asks a man with an "Ask Gandhi" sign if he's Gandhi.
2:13 — People lined up as if to ring the perimeter of the Capitol and sing "We will be peaceful, we will be strong."
3:16 — Dane County Sheriff's deputies tell Meade that no one will be arrested and, in fact, anyone who doesn't leave will be allowed to stay. They'll just have to get out of the way when the floor scrubbers come through.
4:53 — Meade talks to the woman with the "Greedy Obfuscating Plutocrats" sign.
5:35 — And older man questions the woman's ideological credentials.
6:24 — "What is a legal observer?"
7:02 — "Unions are hot."
0:01 — People line the front walk of the State Street exit to the Capitol, preparing to honor the protesters who file out after the building is closed, as promised, at 4 p.m.
0:30 — Protesters file out to the chant of "Thank You... Thank You..."
1:45 — Meade asks a man with an "Ask Gandhi" sign if he's Gandhi.
2:13 — People lined up as if to ring the perimeter of the Capitol and sing "We will be peaceful, we will be strong."
3:16 — Dane County Sheriff's deputies tell Meade that no one will be arrested and, in fact, anyone who doesn't leave will be allowed to stay. They'll just have to get out of the way when the floor scrubbers come through.
4:53 — Meade talks to the woman with the "Greedy Obfuscating Plutocrats" sign.
5:35 — And older man questions the woman's ideological credentials.
6:24 — "What is a legal observer?"
7:02 — "Unions are hot."
Who invited Peter Yarrow to the Wisconsin protests? And why was he the only entertainer on the bill?
Where were all the rest of the supposedly passionate lefties of the entertainment world?
I'm embarrassed for bloggers like Eric Kleefeld who murmur appreciation for Yarrow:
Clinton's Carter's beneficence toward the entertainer of children, and I stumbled across this interesting bit from a review of Robert Shrum's "Concessions of a Serial Campaigner":
In another part of the recording, when I first hear it, I say: "Is Cat Stevens here? This guy needs to project a little more."
Why weren't there better celebrities? Perhaps there are inside polls on how this protest is playing out around the country and people don't want their names dragged into it.
I'm embarrassed for bloggers like Eric Kleefeld who murmur appreciation for Yarrow:
Folk singer Peter Yarrow -- of "Peter, Paul and Mary" fame -- played some politically themed tunes such as "If I Had A Hammer," "Which Side Are You On," "Blowin' In The Wind" and more, and spoke of his hopes that the current crisis in Madison would reawaken in people the urge to achieve social justice that animated people during the civil rights movement. And like his audience, Yarrow often worked "Kill The Bill" and other slogans into the lyrics. (Nostalgia for my childhood made me wish for "Puff The Magic Dragon," but I suppose it wasn't germane.)Oh, yeah, it's so sweet that he entertained children with his magic dragon. If you know what I mean. And I think you do. As Meade wrote over there in the comments:
Imagine the outcry in major media and the lefty blogosphere if the Tea Party invited to sing at one of their rallies someone who had committed and was convicted of [making sexual advances toward] a 14 year-old and got a light sentence of 3 months because he had friends in high places who used their influence on his behalf.I wanted to dig up the old NYT report of Jimmy
Shrum relates the campaign's collective sigh of relief when the networks declined to show footage of Kerry at an Iowa party jokingly miming a toke while Peter Yarrow of Peter, Paul and Mary sang ''Puff the Magic Dragon''....How nice — how typical — of the reporters to help the Democratic candidate. Here's something about Yarrow. Anyway, why wasn't there someone more impressive who wanted to be seen at yesterday's rally? Why Yarrow? And why not some better celebrities from the entertainment and political worlds?
Yarrow followed 13-year-old Sam Frederick of Wauwatosa, who wrote an anti-Walker protest song for the occasion and led the crowd in singing it. In between, organizers shoveled snow off the outdoor stage.Man, that's small time! And look at how lame it was. Meade recorded this half a block from the stage:
The "not official UW Marching Band" — tuba and trumpet blaring — played standards like "If You Want to Be a Badger" and the chicken song...
In another part of the recording, when I first hear it, I say: "Is Cat Stevens here? This guy needs to project a little more."
Why weren't there better celebrities? Perhaps there are inside polls on how this protest is playing out around the country and people don't want their names dragged into it.
Althouse and Meade return to the Veterans Memorial and encounter apologetic protesters, the police, and a rudeness expert.
I took this video yesterday — Saturday, February 26th — at the Wisconsin Capitol building. Meade wanted to go back to see if the protesters had followed through on their promise to remove their things from the Veterans Memorial. The signs that had been taped to the back of the monument were gone, but there was still a lot of junk piled up against it.
The police we encounter didn't want to consult with us on camera, though I do get a clear "no" when I ask if it is against the law to photograph the police. Off camera, they are extremely articulate and professional explaining why the police are allowing the protest and occupation of the Capitol to go on the way it has.
A woman who does not have a Wisconsin accent noses in to tell me I'm "rude" to take pictures.
I say: "Let me ask you a question about 'rudeness.' This is a Veterans Memorial, for people who died in the war. These are all things..."
The rudeness expert interrupts me: "They do things for democracy, which is what we're trying to save right now."
I say: "What would you say to people that are..." And she's turned her back on me and walked away. The rudeness expert.
She had her point and she made it: The memorialized veterans "do things for democracy." That's a poor use of the present tense. They did "things." They died. They fought and they died. But what's important "right now" — according to her — is that the protesters are "trying to save" democracy.
I didn't get to ask follow-up questions, but I think her point was to equate the protesters to the veterans and to make that a justification for piling sleeping bags and all sorts of junk up against the monument. I didn't get to ask how trying to undo the results of the last election is an effort to "save democracy," and, obviously, she wasn't interested in having a conversation with me.
This is what civility looks like...
The police we encounter didn't want to consult with us on camera, though I do get a clear "no" when I ask if it is against the law to photograph the police. Off camera, they are extremely articulate and professional explaining why the police are allowing the protest and occupation of the Capitol to go on the way it has.
A woman who does not have a Wisconsin accent noses in to tell me I'm "rude" to take pictures.
I say: "Let me ask you a question about 'rudeness.' This is a Veterans Memorial, for people who died in the war. These are all things..."
The rudeness expert interrupts me: "They do things for democracy, which is what we're trying to save right now."
I say: "What would you say to people that are..." And she's turned her back on me and walked away. The rudeness expert.
She had her point and she made it: The memorialized veterans "do things for democracy." That's a poor use of the present tense. They did "things." They died. They fought and they died. But what's important "right now" — according to her — is that the protesters are "trying to save" democracy.
I didn't get to ask follow-up questions, but I think her point was to equate the protesters to the veterans and to make that a justification for piling sleeping bags and all sorts of junk up against the monument. I didn't get to ask how trying to undo the results of the last election is an effort to "save democracy," and, obviously, she wasn't interested in having a conversation with me.
This is what civility looks like...
Is it viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment for Wisconsin to permit the protesters to use the Capitol building as it has over the past 10+ days?
Here is part of a presentation made at the University of Wisconsin Law School on February 22, 2011 by Donald Downs, a UW political science professor:
Downs is very briefly raising the issue of whether it should be considered viewpoint discrimination for the protesters at the state capitol to be permitted to post signs and sleep overnight when other groups are not going to be given the same treatment.
The case he mentions is Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence, in which the Supreme Court upheld a neutral rule that prohibited everyone from sleeping in the park. In that case, protesters argued that they had a right to special treatment, because they were sleeping as a form of expression, to say something about the plight of the homeless.
In the current Wisconsin situation, the protesters are being allowed to do many, many things that ordinarily no one does. It's hard to imagine how the state could operate in the future if other groups were given equal treatment and permitted to stay overnight for days on end, to post thousands of signs all over the historic marble walls and pillars, to prop and post signs on the monuments, to bang drums and use a bullhorn in the rotunda to give speeches and lead chants all day long for days on end. Tell me then, what will happen when the next protester comes along and the next and the next? Hasn't the state opened the Capitol as a free speech forum in which viewpoint discrimination will be forbidden under the First Amendment?
But, you might say, the Republicans hold the political majority and the special treatment is going to their opponents. To that I say: So what? If you discriminate in favor of your political opponents, it's still viewpoint discrimination. It's interesting to speculate about why the Republicans are permitting such a giant extra helping of free speech to their opponents. Perhaps it is so they can say, when their friends show up on some later occasion — some Tea Party group? — that they must give them the same access.
But I don't believe they want that. The Capitol has for years and years been a solemn place. For 25 years, I have brought visitors there and walked slowly through the beautiful spaces looking at the different colored and patterned marble on the walls and gazing with awe up into the dome. This is the Capitol Wisconsinites know and treasure. It can't become an all-purpose free-speech forum.
At Christmastime, there is a big tree in the rotunda. The Freedom from Religion Foundation doesn't like that. This week's anti-Scott Walker people are banging on drywall buckets and chanting "This is what democracy looks like." How about a hundred atheists in the rotunda for a week in December banging on buckets and chanting "This is what stupidity looks like"? (Okay, there's a conlaw exam for you. Submit your answers and I'll grade.)
I think the Republicans are simply refraining from confrontation and waiting for the protesters to get tired and leave or — on their own — to upset the ordinary people around the state. Any attempt to sweep them out or pull down their signs might make them look sympathetic or generate an air of martyrdom, and so, I assume, it has seemed to be the wiser path to leave them alone.
UPDATE: At the Capitol today (2/26/11) I talked to the police enough to get some insight into what the legal theory is. I've got a lot of video and photographs to process this evening, so I will put off writing more about this until tomorrow.
UPDATE 2: Prof. Downs emails:
Downs is very briefly raising the issue of whether it should be considered viewpoint discrimination for the protesters at the state capitol to be permitted to post signs and sleep overnight when other groups are not going to be given the same treatment.
The case he mentions is Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence, in which the Supreme Court upheld a neutral rule that prohibited everyone from sleeping in the park. In that case, protesters argued that they had a right to special treatment, because they were sleeping as a form of expression, to say something about the plight of the homeless.
In the current Wisconsin situation, the protesters are being allowed to do many, many things that ordinarily no one does. It's hard to imagine how the state could operate in the future if other groups were given equal treatment and permitted to stay overnight for days on end, to post thousands of signs all over the historic marble walls and pillars, to prop and post signs on the monuments, to bang drums and use a bullhorn in the rotunda to give speeches and lead chants all day long for days on end. Tell me then, what will happen when the next protester comes along and the next and the next? Hasn't the state opened the Capitol as a free speech forum in which viewpoint discrimination will be forbidden under the First Amendment?
But, you might say, the Republicans hold the political majority and the special treatment is going to their opponents. To that I say: So what? If you discriminate in favor of your political opponents, it's still viewpoint discrimination. It's interesting to speculate about why the Republicans are permitting such a giant extra helping of free speech to their opponents. Perhaps it is so they can say, when their friends show up on some later occasion — some Tea Party group? — that they must give them the same access.
But I don't believe they want that. The Capitol has for years and years been a solemn place. For 25 years, I have brought visitors there and walked slowly through the beautiful spaces looking at the different colored and patterned marble on the walls and gazing with awe up into the dome. This is the Capitol Wisconsinites know and treasure. It can't become an all-purpose free-speech forum.
At Christmastime, there is a big tree in the rotunda. The Freedom from Religion Foundation doesn't like that. This week's anti-Scott Walker people are banging on drywall buckets and chanting "This is what democracy looks like." How about a hundred atheists in the rotunda for a week in December banging on buckets and chanting "This is what stupidity looks like"? (Okay, there's a conlaw exam for you. Submit your answers and I'll grade.)
I think the Republicans are simply refraining from confrontation and waiting for the protesters to get tired and leave or — on their own — to upset the ordinary people around the state. Any attempt to sweep them out or pull down their signs might make them look sympathetic or generate an air of martyrdom, and so, I assume, it has seemed to be the wiser path to leave them alone.
UPDATE: At the Capitol today (2/26/11) I talked to the police enough to get some insight into what the legal theory is. I've got a lot of video and photographs to process this evening, so I will put off writing more about this until tomorrow.
UPDATE 2: Prof. Downs emails:
Ann raises points that merit serious First Amendment attention. In my talk last Wednesday, I raised the concern about viewpoint discrimination, but said it was outweighed at that point by public necessity. But the necessity position loses force as time passes, and police are able to adjust to the situation. Regardless of where one stands on this particular issue, it is never a valid or good thing if government grants special First Amendment rights to one group or set of protesters that it would not extend to all other groups. This is bedrock First Amendment principle based on a long history of experience. And police need to maintain a position of absolute neutrality in such matters. And it doesn't matter how peaceful or respectful a group might be behaving, for such otherwise laudatory behavior does not entitle anyone to special treatement under the law. The First Amendment either applies equally to everyone, or it is subject to political barter.
Lefty blogger loves the idea of restaurants refusing to serve people that their other customers express open hatred toward.
"Sounds like a good idea to me. I don’t generally consider myself a snob, but in this case I’ll make an exception — I’ll be happy to dine at an establishment that knows exactly which kind of undesirables should be kept out."
Swopa loves that a Madison restaurant asked Governor Scott Walker to leave when customers booed him. He/she links to a Madison blogger who deleted the name of the restaurant after the restaurant received threats. (Threats? Were they reported to the police?) Swopa notes that he edited his post to delete the name of the restaurant, but he leaves in his "via Howie Klein on Twitter" link, and the name of the restaurant is right there.
Idiot. Don't rely on Firedoglake to protect you. They care. They want to protect you. But they just can't quite pull off the protectiveness they'd love to give you.
And that's the problem with liberals. They care. They're here to help. They're here to help the people they've decided are the people who deserve to be helped. But they do a half-assed job of protecting even the people they care about.
And how about believing in principles that you are willing to follow at a high level of abstraction? You love the idea of restaurants letting the passions of their customers determine who ought to be seated (at least when they sympathize with those passions). What sprang into my head was: Ollie's Barbecue!
And who thinks about tomorrow? The state capitol is occupied right now and plastered with thousands of signs this week, and isn't that just great? You haven't give a moment's thought — have you? — to what free speech rights will apply to the next group that wants to appropriate the state capitol? Are you planning on advocating viewpoint discrimination to keep the signs you find loathsome off the walls?
No. I know. You have no plan. You haven't thought about it. Swopa began his post this way:
What children!
IN THE COMMENTS: There's some evidence that the story of the booing and ejectment was a hoax. Of course, nothing in my post depends on whether the incident really happened or not. I'm writing about the reaction to the incident, not the incident itself. If it is a hoax, I would like to get to the bottom of it. Did the owners of the restaurant seek to endear themselves to Madisonians with viral P.R. about their political faith? Or were employees appropriating their employer's reputation?
Swopa loves that a Madison restaurant asked Governor Scott Walker to leave when customers booed him. He/she links to a Madison blogger who deleted the name of the restaurant after the restaurant received threats. (Threats? Were they reported to the police?) Swopa notes that he edited his post to delete the name of the restaurant, but he leaves in his "via Howie Klein on Twitter" link, and the name of the restaurant is right there.
Idiot. Don't rely on Firedoglake to protect you. They care. They want to protect you. But they just can't quite pull off the protectiveness they'd love to give you.
And that's the problem with liberals. They care. They're here to help. They're here to help the people they've decided are the people who deserve to be helped. But they do a half-assed job of protecting even the people they care about.
And how about believing in principles that you are willing to follow at a high level of abstraction? You love the idea of restaurants letting the passions of their customers determine who ought to be seated (at least when they sympathize with those passions). What sprang into my head was: Ollie's Barbecue!
Ollie's Barbecue is a family owned restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama, specializing in barbecued meats and homemade pies, with a seating capacity of 220 customers... The restaurant caters to a family and white-collar trade with a take-out service for Negroes....Ah, but who remembers anything anymore? It's today that matters. The war dead are dead, and now their memorial is a handy place to tape your signs and back your table up against so all your stuff doesn't fall on the floor.
And who thinks about tomorrow? The state capitol is occupied right now and plastered with thousands of signs this week, and isn't that just great? You haven't give a moment's thought — have you? — to what free speech rights will apply to the next group that wants to appropriate the state capitol? Are you planning on advocating viewpoint discrimination to keep the signs you find loathsome off the walls?
No. I know. You have no plan. You haven't thought about it. Swopa began his post this way:
Sometimes, it’s good to leave detached, cerebral meta-analyses of politics aside and just get a taste of public opinion being expressed the old-fashioned way.Sometimes! The whole point of principles is that you're supposed to follow them all the time — especially when you would find it most satisfying to violate them. Swopa's all: Let's not be "detached" and "cerebral" today when we're having such fun.
What children!
IN THE COMMENTS: There's some evidence that the story of the booing and ejectment was a hoax. Of course, nothing in my post depends on whether the incident really happened or not. I'm writing about the reaction to the incident, not the incident itself. If it is a hoax, I would like to get to the bottom of it. Did the owners of the restaurant seek to endear themselves to Madisonians with viral P.R. about their political faith? Or were employees appropriating their employer's reputation?
100 lawprofs ask Congress to impose an ethics code on the Supreme Court.
Oddly, the name Koch appears 10 times in this Washington Post article. It appears that some lawprof brains are aboil with worries about the nefarious Koch brothers. Kochophobia rages on, and these furious minds seem to imagine themselves overcoming the evil that is Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — as if their "ethics" plan — assuming it could be put in place — couldn't possibly backfire and oust their favorite liberal/swing justice.
So... retired Justices Souter, Stevens, and O'Connor might step up to decide who to disqualify in — let's say — the case about the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Maybe you think that skews a tad liberal, a tad too anti-Scalia-and-Thomas. Well, first, that's not a bug, it's a feature. And, second, whoever is setting up the "independent body" could always balance it with those "other experts." You know where to get them, don't you? Elite law schools! Begin with the names of those 100 professors who signed that letter to Congress.
It's all so delightfully inbred — isn't it? — in the feverish fantasy life of the Scalia- and Thomas-haters of legal academia.
The professors said in their letter to the committees that their goal is not to second-guess the activities of any individual judge but to create "mandatory and enforceable rules to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court." An influential British judge declared in the 17th century that "no man may be a judge in his own case," the letter said, but "inexplicably we still allow Supreme Court justices to be the sole judge of themselves on recusal issues."And what man will be the judge of whether these law professors are truthfully reporting their motives?
Under the ethics code that the lawyers consider their model, approved and regularly updated by the nation's chief appellate judges under the chairmanship of the chief justice, lesser judges are prohibited from accepting travel reimbursements from outside groups if they "give the appearance of influencing the judge" or "otherwise give the appearance of impropriety."And who will be the judge of which meetings and events are overtly political? If they're sponsored by the Kochs, they're political. So far, we know that. Thanks a lot. I love the irony. It's obvious that this proposal is overtly political!
Nan Aron, director of the liberal group Alliance for Justice, said that if these rules were extended to the Supreme Court, none of the justices could attend "overtly political meetings or events" like those sponsored by the Kochs.
At present, said Ellen Yaroshefsky, director of the Jacob Burns Ethics Center at the Benjamin Cardozo School of Law, "we have standard-less standards" at the court that she struggles to explain to students.Oh, wonderful! An independent body of retired justices or other experts. Yes, wouldn't it be great to have an independent body of retired justices or other experts decide which Supreme Court Justices got to participate in particular cases?
She said it would be straightforward for the court to appoint an independent body of retired justices or other experts to adjudicate recusal and ethics controversies.
So... retired Justices Souter, Stevens, and O'Connor might step up to decide who to disqualify in — let's say — the case about the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Maybe you think that skews a tad liberal, a tad too anti-Scalia-and-Thomas. Well, first, that's not a bug, it's a feature. And, second, whoever is setting up the "independent body" could always balance it with those "other experts." You know where to get them, don't you? Elite law schools! Begin with the names of those 100 professors who signed that letter to Congress.
It's all so delightfully inbred — isn't it? — in the feverish fantasy life of the Scalia- and Thomas-haters of legal academia.
Obama orders Justice Department to drop its defense of the Defense of Marriage Act.
Politico reports:
ADDED: Watch me — last October — criticize Obama for fighting against gay rights in the courts:
Hmmm. October... Had to win some votes back then.
“After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the president has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny,” [Attorney General Eric] Holder said in a statement.(Last fall, I was very critical of Obama's willingness to defend DOMA in the courts.)
“The president has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the president has instructed the department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the president’s determination.”
ADDED: Watch me — last October — criticize Obama for fighting against gay rights in the courts:
Hmmm. October... Had to win some votes back then.
Don't forget the forum on Gov. Walker's budget repair bill at the law school tonight.
Previously blogged here. This event, from 6-8 tonight in room 2260 at the UW Law School, is open to the public. And, as you can see from the law school website, the law school will produce a video of the event that will be available here tomorrow.
"Where is the outcry from PETA?"
Asks a commenter at the Isthmus post about the camel the "Daily Show" brought to the protest.
Where's the outcry? Probably hanging out with the outcry from the Freedom From Religion Foundation over the Reverend Jesse Jackson leading a prayer (with the crowd of protesters in the Wisconsin Capitol rotunda):
(By the way, Jackson's prayer does not violate the Establishment Clause, and in fact, he has a free speech right to do what you see in that video. That is my official professorial opinion.)
Where's the outcry? Probably hanging out with the outcry from the Freedom From Religion Foundation over the Reverend Jesse Jackson leading a prayer (with the crowd of protesters in the Wisconsin Capitol rotunda):
(By the way, Jackson's prayer does not violate the Establishment Clause, and in fact, he has a free speech right to do what you see in that video. That is my official professorial opinion.)
Voir Google.
Voir dire — the juror selection process — is transformed by Google.
IN THE COMMENTS: bagoh20 says:
While interviews suggest that Internet vetting of jurors is catching on in courtrooms across the nation, lawyers are skittish about discussing the practice, in part because court rules on the subject are murky or nonexistent in most jurisdictions. Ten law firms and five jury consultants declined requests from Reuters Legal to observe them building juror profiles, many saying they weren't sure judges would approve. "Lawyers don't know the rules yet," said John Nadolenco, a partner at Mayer Brown in Los Angeles. "It's like the Wild West."Is this wrong? An invasion of the juror's privacy? It's so easy to do that it seems to me that making a rule against it is unfair to honest lawyers. (Cue the typical jokes.) I'd say get used to it. This is the world we live in. The information that's out there is out there. Deal with it.
IN THE COMMENTS: bagoh20 says:
I hope it catches on. I'll never have to sit on a jury again.Pogo says:
Fake posts implicating jurors and cops and witnesses will escalate.Paddy O says:
I used do tweet to amuse me, now I'm hoping it'll excuse me.If twits do tweet, then raps aren't beat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
