Everyone should read this Volokh post. Not only does she break his penis, but he can't even sue her for breaking it.
Also, I was just checking out the Huffington Post and came accross this post asking when "they going to bring back the draft." It further said, "I have three sons -- all nearly teenagers -- and am terrified that they will. Why don't they make it that just Republican kids get called up?" I wanted to respond to the author by asking them if they were stupid and to tell him/her that Democrats are the only ones wanting to bring back the draft and that it is not going to happen. Then I realized that both that the Huffington Post does not allow you to respond to their bloggers and THAT THE BLOGGER IN QUESTION IS KATHY IRELAND. Again, funny but painful.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Friday, May 13, 2005
Events in Canada...
We should really be paying attention to the events going on right now in Canada. I do not really know very much about this, but it appears that Conservatives have a chance to take over with the help of the Bloc Quebecois. Captain's Quarters posted this a while ago about the liberals problems. The liberal government is ignoring a non-confidence vote (apparently it was not a technical non-confidence vote) and is putting off a real non-confidence vote till after Thursday (apparently two of the conservative MPs are having health problems.)
Ok, now here is my purely uninformed speculation. This is probably very unlikely, but here I go. If the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois are able to bring down the liberal government, then there seems like there would be a realistic possibility of Quebec getting independence from Canada. This break up of Canada might lead to other parts of Canada (like for instance British Columbia) feeling like they might as well go it alone. This break up might make some Canadian providence decided that they ought to just become States of the United States. This is probably wishful thinking on my part as I want a united North America under the US flag (with the exception of Quebec of course), but this might be a start to my Manifest Destiny dreams.
Ok, now here is my purely uninformed speculation. This is probably very unlikely, but here I go. If the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois are able to bring down the liberal government, then there seems like there would be a realistic possibility of Quebec getting independence from Canada. This break up of Canada might lead to other parts of Canada (like for instance British Columbia) feeling like they might as well go it alone. This break up might make some Canadian providence decided that they ought to just become States of the United States. This is probably wishful thinking on my part as I want a united North America under the US flag (with the exception of Quebec of course), but this might be a start to my Manifest Destiny dreams.
Executive Calendar Filibusters Unconstitutional?
Andrew McCarthy is someone I have come to respect. Please read this article. I am persuaded and I also did not think these filibusters were unconstitutional, just a very bad way of running the Senate.
Wow, this Reid is hitting below the belt...
"Henry Saad would have been filibustered anyway," Mr. Reid said on the floor yesterday, about the Michigan Appeals Court judge who is nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
"All you need to do is have a member go upstairs and look at his confidential report from the FBI, and I think we would all agree that there is a problem there," Mr. Reid continued.
Full story here.
This type of smear is obviously unethical, but the question is: What can be done now to punish Reid?
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Was Wisconsin Stolen From Bush in 2004?
Powerline asks just this question and links to this article. No proof that it would actually change the result in Wisconsin, but it is something that all non-socialists should remember whenever one of the brain dead liberal radicals at GULC (a large number of them professors here) start going on about voter fraud in Florida in 2000. The worst instance is when professors go on about how it is worse to deny one person a vote than to mistakenly allowing others to illegally vote multiple times (the thumb on the scales to allow easy voting). These fools should know that without a secure vote that democracy will break down.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Good News/Bad News
Maybe it is not surprising that the NYT puts all Iraq news in the worst possible light...
But this story is interesting because, pace NYT, rather than declining to serve in the new Cabinet out of solidarity with his disempowered ethnic group, Mr Shibli rejected the post on the principle that he is A HUMAN BEING, not a pawn for some tribe.
Ethnic spoils systems are dangerous and this principled man has, whether all understand it or not, spoken loudly in favor of human dignity.
But this story is interesting because, pace NYT, rather than declining to serve in the new Cabinet out of solidarity with his disempowered ethnic group, Mr Shibli rejected the post on the principle that he is A HUMAN BEING, not a pawn for some tribe.
Ethnic spoils systems are dangerous and this principled man has, whether all understand it or not, spoken loudly in favor of human dignity.
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Comparative Law Prep
Thoughts in preparation for Thursday exam...
Is federalization of the law harmful or beneficial?
The question could be one of fact versus principle. The Civil Law is said (by Prof Wolff, just turned 99!) to work from principles to fact, the Common Law the reverse. To the extent facts predominate in determining justice (in courts or in policy), the closer to the specific circumstances one would want to be, justifying local law and legislatures. To the extent principles carry greater weight, the further from the blurring circumstances one would want to be, justifying universal law and government.
Our brilliant Constitution satisfies both theories, combined in creative tension. Erie was a particularly good decision for the very reason that the Common Law is best when local and codified law best when developed by the "aristocracy" of the mind from the center.
Are Congress and the Federal Judiciary so wise? It is reasonable to posit that the best tend to rise, so Senators will be smarter than Congressmen, who will be in turn be smarter than state senators, etc. The same is thought to be the case for the federal bench versus the state bench.
Long Live Federalism!
best,
Charles
Is federalization of the law harmful or beneficial?
The question could be one of fact versus principle. The Civil Law is said (by Prof Wolff, just turned 99!) to work from principles to fact, the Common Law the reverse. To the extent facts predominate in determining justice (in courts or in policy), the closer to the specific circumstances one would want to be, justifying local law and legislatures. To the extent principles carry greater weight, the further from the blurring circumstances one would want to be, justifying universal law and government.
Our brilliant Constitution satisfies both theories, combined in creative tension. Erie was a particularly good decision for the very reason that the Common Law is best when local and codified law best when developed by the "aristocracy" of the mind from the center.
Are Congress and the Federal Judiciary so wise? It is reasonable to posit that the best tend to rise, so Senators will be smarter than Congressmen, who will be in turn be smarter than state senators, etc. The same is thought to be the case for the federal bench versus the state bench.
Long Live Federalism!
best,
Charles
Nostalgia Option for Filibusters
I am studying for exams right now, so no long posts... but I thought that this is a great reading for anyone concerned about Filibusters. It seems that the rules were changed in the 1980s to make the traditional filibusters really difficult for the majority and very easy for the minority. Count me as a supporter as the Nostalgia Option for Filibusters.
Monday, May 02, 2005
Study Break - Part II
Clearly this religion-as-the-basis-of-morality-for-lawyers idea struck a chord with a few people, and/or the debate is a welcome distraction from studying. I received this thoughtful response to my last post from Frank Walsh:
Faith, in its diverse and complex manifestations, operates at level much more fundamental than as an indeterminate cousin of ethical argument. Using faith as a moral compass is predicated not on outlining a cogent set of rules upon which to base conduct or contrasting the Catholic and Jewish dogma on a given activity. Rather, faith offers a perspective through which to analyze the normative problems of our day: faith tells us to think of ourselves in a larger context.
By seeing ourselves as just one small part in a vast system with goals infinitely more important than any personal targets we set, the very way young lawyers make ethical choices would be changed. Small term gains pale in comparison to the work that serves a greater purpose. In economic terms, externalities that are not taken into account when thinking only of oneself are efficiently allocated when thinking of the bigger picture. Central to all organized faiths is the concept that to serve the greater good rewards the individual; this is exactly the normative paradigm young lawyers need in the murky waters of legal ethics.
Ethical reasoning deliberated through the perspective of a rational, utility-maximizing person is the cornerstone of moral relativism. Fundamental to any purely secular pursuit of an ethical code is the assumption that we should look at the greater good; all I argue is that religion is a way to ensure the proper goals are maintained. Reasoning holds a central place in the articulation of an ethical code, but that reasoning must begin from the right starting point. To quote our Commander-in-Chief, this normative foundations tells us to "make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself- and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character."
So yes, teach rational thought in law schools. But teach it in the right context. It just might be that looking through the lens of a religious faith is what is needed to put the blurry line between right and wrong back into focus.
-Also, whoever said the original quote must be, based solely on the insightfulness of the quote, ruggedly handsome and possess insatiable boy-next-door charm.
Faith, in its diverse and complex manifestations, operates at level much more fundamental than as an indeterminate cousin of ethical argument. Using faith as a moral compass is predicated not on outlining a cogent set of rules upon which to base conduct or contrasting the Catholic and Jewish dogma on a given activity. Rather, faith offers a perspective through which to analyze the normative problems of our day: faith tells us to think of ourselves in a larger context.
By seeing ourselves as just one small part in a vast system with goals infinitely more important than any personal targets we set, the very way young lawyers make ethical choices would be changed. Small term gains pale in comparison to the work that serves a greater purpose. In economic terms, externalities that are not taken into account when thinking only of oneself are efficiently allocated when thinking of the bigger picture. Central to all organized faiths is the concept that to serve the greater good rewards the individual; this is exactly the normative paradigm young lawyers need in the murky waters of legal ethics.
Ethical reasoning deliberated through the perspective of a rational, utility-maximizing person is the cornerstone of moral relativism. Fundamental to any purely secular pursuit of an ethical code is the assumption that we should look at the greater good; all I argue is that religion is a way to ensure the proper goals are maintained. Reasoning holds a central place in the articulation of an ethical code, but that reasoning must begin from the right starting point. To quote our Commander-in-Chief, this normative foundations tells us to "make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself- and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country, but to its character."
So yes, teach rational thought in law schools. But teach it in the right context. It just might be that looking through the lens of a religious faith is what is needed to put the blurry line between right and wrong back into focus.
-Also, whoever said the original quote must be, based solely on the insightfulness of the quote, ruggedly handsome and possess insatiable boy-next-door charm.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Snack Time
There's not much time to read or write on this blog with the burden of finals weighing heavily upon the law school crowd, but I just thought I would post a tiny little "food for thought."
I had a recent conversation with a friend about the surprising lack of religious influence at this "Catholic" university. My friend remarked the following: "For a profession that is criticized for losing its way in a system that has eviscerated ethical standards, the moral compass provided by faith could guide lawyers in their search for justice."
Indeed, with the divorce of religion from legal reasoning, it is no wonder that so many lawyers have no coherent system of ethics. Before anyone takes up arms against me, this is not to say that religion should be taught in the law school classroom. I am just reflecting on the fact that if religion took a more prominent role in the law school culture, there might be some hope of producing lawyers who have a sense of right and wrong to guide them in ethical practice.
I had a recent conversation with a friend about the surprising lack of religious influence at this "Catholic" university. My friend remarked the following: "For a profession that is criticized for losing its way in a system that has eviscerated ethical standards, the moral compass provided by faith could guide lawyers in their search for justice."
Indeed, with the divorce of religion from legal reasoning, it is no wonder that so many lawyers have no coherent system of ethics. Before anyone takes up arms against me, this is not to say that religion should be taught in the law school classroom. I am just reflecting on the fact that if religion took a more prominent role in the law school culture, there might be some hope of producing lawyers who have a sense of right and wrong to guide them in ethical practice.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Federalist Society's Echo Chamber?
I noticed that in this article it claims that to get a high level appointment in the DOJ, you need to have "references from conservative appellate Judge J. Michael Luttig, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia or former Whitewater Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr," have gone to a top law school, and have gone to Federalist Society events.
Then the article continues with this criticism:
Let me just say that this guy Paul Light seems to be confusing the Federalist Society with ACS. Federalist events are marked by presenting many more points of view than any ACS event, at least on our campus. Social conservative and the libertarians often disagree on about every issue, and they do so in an open way. Honestly, I am not sure if anyone in the Federalist Society here could be described as an "absolute loyalist."
I also doubt that anyone smart enough to attend a top law school and get the top grades good enough to be a clerk for Scalia or Luttig would be willing to be an "absolute loyalist."
I feel that this criticism is really just sour grapes that there are not more Clinton/Gore loyalists at the DOJ to undermine the Bush agenda.
Then the article continues with this criticism:
"It creates an echo chamber effect and weakens dissent," says Paul Light, a professor of public policy at New York University.
"This administration seems to have decided that it doesn't really want dissent," Light says. "What it wants are people who are absolute loyalists."
Let me just say that this guy Paul Light seems to be confusing the Federalist Society with ACS. Federalist events are marked by presenting many more points of view than any ACS event, at least on our campus. Social conservative and the libertarians often disagree on about every issue, and they do so in an open way. Honestly, I am not sure if anyone in the Federalist Society here could be described as an "absolute loyalist."
I also doubt that anyone smart enough to attend a top law school and get the top grades good enough to be a clerk for Scalia or Luttig would be willing to be an "absolute loyalist."
I feel that this criticism is really just sour grapes that there are not more Clinton/Gore loyalists at the DOJ to undermine the Bush agenda.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
What's so great about Juries?
The 7th Amendment right to a jury trial may be a constitutional "freedom," but I doubt much it extends either liberty or efficiency. Originally a Norman innovation, the jury was a collection of interested, knowledgeable neighbors gathered together to decide a case. Obviously, today that is precisely the sort of thing that would get one disqualified, however, at the time, it made jurors efficient decisionmakers. Considering the complexity of law today, however, I don't see how one can argue that jurors can (a) assurably and predictably act unemotionally when finding fact or (b) understand the technical vagaries of the law. Jury nullification exists, sure, but that swings both ways--e.g., klansmen acquitted in the South. Nor are judges agents of "the state" in the sense that they inevitably desire to expand state power. They are mostly legal scholars and practitioners with varying ideological views cabined by the authority of their office. I guess my problem is that while jury trials might be a civil or political right, I've yet to hear them defended on utilitarian or natural right grounds.
Caloo Calay,
dustin kenall
Caloo Calay,
dustin kenall
Monday, April 18, 2005
Social Security Calculator
Heritage has an interesting social security calculator up that you should check out. Just put in your expected salary and see how much social security will steal from you every month- its truely scary!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
