Worst Legislation Ever?

It's not everyday that you see Congress pass a bill that:

1. Gives billions to wealthy corporate agri-businesses...
2. ...in a time of skyrocketing food prices and shortages
3. Consigns third-world farmers who have cheaper, better products to continued poverty
4. Subsidizes the high-fat, high-sugar diet that is killing 100,000s of Americans
5. Does nothing to address actual hunger in this country
6. Encourages land-use policies that will exacerbate global warming, erosion, and the destruction of natural habitat
7. Fosters the consolidation of an already concentrated farming industry
8. Leaves taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 5 years
9. Raises food prices for the rest of us...
10. ...And in some Twilight Zone universe, is sensibly and honorably opposed by George W. Bush.

Whew, so glad we have Nancy Pelosi in charge now!

In re Marriage Cases

I'm getting word through the grapevine that the Supreme Court of California will announce its decision in In re Marriage Cases tomorrow at 10 AM. List of briefs, including one by our own Prof. Choper here. Thoughts? Predictions?

Personally, while I'd love to be pleasantly surprised, the present court is far too conservative. I'm guessing 6-1 affirming the Court of Appeal judgment.

Bad News From Top Dog

So today just before 4:00 as I strolled home from Boalt, chewing my lip over that Con Law take-home, I bumped into Berkeley Fire Department on Durant Avenue. They looked pretty busy. Which is understandable, because they had CPR in progress on a gunshot victim in the parking lot next to Top Dog.

That would be 4:00 in the PM. Not AM.

Three* simultaneous thoughts as I played gawker for a moment:

1. Berkeley Fire Department has its shit together. The scene looked like a page straight out of a training manual
   
2. That poor dude is a goner, though
   
3. My obligations to the Dormant Commerce Clause? They're a privilege, not a burden. And stress over them probably makes me a smaller person, not a bigger one
   

If you are like me, you feel stuck inside today when the weather is great, your exams are not over yet, etc.  Or perhaps (unlike me) the jumpsuit people may be about to rearrange your 90 year old grandmother's plans for your graduation.   Whatever.  At least you weren't lurking around Top Dog today at 3:45. And with a little more fortune, you were not close with any of today's patrons of that fine establishment.

There is no way to say this, but if you are not that fortunate, I'm really sorry for your loss. Be the victim a perpetrator, a target or a bystander, this is a horrible thing.  We will learn the rest of the story piece by piece as it comes out.  But the senseless ugliness part?  That's apparent.  

*(I also wondered other things, like whether they would have to break someone off from chest compression duty to man an extinguisher if all those unattended hot dogs were to ignite on the grill, how pissed the AC Transit drivers are going to be when they close down the street, and, um . . .  where exactly is that shooter right now, anyway? But those questions seem kind of inappropriate given their context.  Well, maybe not the shooter question.  But still.)

Little update: Daily Cal article here.

Have Feith but Verify

I watched with great interest the Jon Stewart interview of Doug Feith last night. (Part 1 and part 2). I am now firmly convinced that this administration, more than any other, uses the withholding of information to shape the public mind.

The technique is commonly used by dictatorships that want to convince the population of their general benevolence. The Commies come to mind right off the bat. There was a consistent effort throughout the post-WWII history of the USSR to paint the US and its allies as-for lack of a better word-bad. To pull this off, they had to hide the truth. Travel restrictions to western countries, control of the media, no privacy to communicate with relatives in western countries, etc.

Particularly relevant today, in times of emergencies, the Commies shunned western aid. The population could not get wind of the better technologies, foodstuff, etc. enjoyed by the rest of the world. For example in 1988, following a devastating earthquake in Armenia, aid from the US and other western countries did not reach the earthquake zone for days. Planes full of aid sat on the tarmacs of the Moscow airports, restricted from flying to Armenia. I think the same thing is now happening in Myanmar and may happen in China following the quake there. Stories about the junta stamping their names on UN aid shipments bolster my theory. They don't want the population to realize a) how incompetent the generals are, and b) how much better off the people would be if only they modernized. And we know what happened to the USSR as more and more people gained exposure to the west. No more lines for TP damn it!!!

Which brings us back to Feith's interview. Rather than hiding the good found in other societies, this administration is hiding its own dirty laundry. How can someone claim that there was no deception leading up to Iraq when White House e-mails from the invasion time period are mysteriously missing? When the Pentagon hired goons to repeat its propaganda on national television? When none of the assertions have panned out? His book, I fear, is one of several attempts to rewrite the story of this administration. More than anything, I hope the next administration sets the record straight by releasing all relevant documents to the public. Only a fool would trust Doug Feith's take on it. And what's that expression about fooling?

Graduation, Act I

Borris asks in comments:

Any thoughts on this year's commencement speaker - The Honorable Mary M. Schroeder? Also, is the faculty speaker - Anne Joseph O'C*nnell - chosen by the 3L class as a whole or by the graduation committee?

Those questions are as good as any for the seeding of a graduation thread (though I have my fingers crossed for some kind of tell-all graduation exposé from the likes MRP and EW).

3:'s: Congrats. You are now among the most highly educated people on the planet. Scary, huh?

Bar Bar Bar

Today the Cal bar results come out for February takers. Good luck to all Boalties, and really anyone else. And congrats to the Boalties who passed the NY bar.

Q & A With Our Soon-To-Be ASP

The Shark has posted a Q & A* with our new ASP hire.

No bones about it, she's here to help with the bar exam. And part of her plan will be to talk about teaching, with teachers:

What I have proposed to [Boalt] as an idea, and what I’d very much like to do, is to start thinking about teaching colloquia. I think it’d be fun to bring in professors in education, psychology, people who have something to say about pedagogy, so at least there is some place for people to talk about teaching. It would give faculty members an opportunity to talk about their own pedagogy, what works for them, a setting in which these could be shared.

"Fun"? I wonder if that is some kind of newfangled genteelism for "effective." I also wonder if deciding to bring her mindset on board at Boalt suggests that there may indeed be "an instructional issue" [see comment at 8:05 PM].

You should read the interview for yourself. My intention is not to lift her words from their context, and use them to level an implicit charge against the pedagogical skills of our fine professor-scholars here at Boalt.

But on the other hand, what she says sounds so . . . rational.


*Update: Links fixed.

How to Run Against McCain?

Can we start talking about John McCain now? I liked Hillary once upon a time, and I’ve humored her candidacy to ensure my own domestic tranquility, but, to paraphrase a line her husband used in 1992 (that he himself took from Reagan in 1980), “It’s time for her to go.”

All these months of internecine fighting have not (and please read these next lines in your best Chris Farley voice) “strengthened the eventual nominee,” or “shown our democracy in action,” or “brought new voters to the party.”

They’ve only let John McCain run around the country with a shiny halo undimmed by even the meekest criticism from a docile media. The country hasn’t yet gotten the telegram that he’s no longer a Mr. Rogers moderate. He’s the carnivorous offspring of Strom Thurmond and Glen Beck.

Time matters. At this point in the 2004 campaign, John Kerry was an effete, wind-surfing, brie-tasting, troop-hating pederast. And possibly an informer for Al Qaeda. John McCain deserves the same treatment – except on, you know, actual issues instead of imaginary demagogic ones.

But don’t worry, there’s plenty to choose from. I think there’s ten themes the Democrats should be trying out:

1. Old man

2. Crazy and cranky

3. Crazy and cranky old man

4. McCain of Arabia

5. Flip-flopper

6. W, the Sequel

7. Anti-choice, anti-Social Security, anti-health care (the usual liberal lines; bleh)

8. Slave to the far-right (playing kissy face with Falwell, etc.)

9. The Double Talk Express (various hypocrisies and about-faces since 2000)

10. Clueless on the economic realities of the middle class

Personally, I like a combination of #6, 9, and 10. Don’t look a gift lame-duck President in the mouth. If Biden or Clarke were the nominee, maybe #4. But I don’t trust Obama (or most Democrats) to be able to talk about foreign policy coherently. Heck, I’m not sure I trust them to do foreign policy.

But, whatever is this attack option, it’s time to start loading the cannons. You can’t transform the country into a radiant, hopeful place unless you first dismantle the other guy.

The Twain Effect

Mark Twain wrote in 1872, "We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men every day who don't know anything and can't read."

Yesterday, an Oregon jury announced a $300 million verdict against Payless Shoes in a trademark/tradedress infringement case brought by Adidas. [Hat tip: Bashman]. Looking through the verdict form, I found the following idiosyncrasy.

After finding Payless liable, beginning on Page 3, the jurors are ask to find which of shoes (by lots) infringed TM/TD or constituted unfair practice. The list of shoes is long, so the verdict form provides the following:

As a shortcut, if you found for adidas on each lot and will be checking "Yes" for each lot number, you may check "Yes" on the next question and skip the chart entirely.

[unchecked] Yes - we found for adidas on each lot and would check "Yes" for each lot on the chart. Please proceed to Section III of this form.

[checked] No = we found for adidas on at least one lot but not all lots. Please complete the entire chart and then proceed to Section III of this form.

Guess what the jury did? Checked no, then checked yes for EVERY SINGLE lot.

UPDATE: And I feel the fool. On page 9, the jury did indeed check no for one of the shoes. Yay for the American jury system.

The Bus Witch

I need help. Those of you who are familiar with the Bus Witch understand my predicament, for today on the 51, I was hexed.

The story beings with a pretty straightforward encounter, when she and her assorted parcels/baggies/wheely-thingies boarded the bus and kicked me out of my seat: "I need to sit down."

I promptly vacated -- the last thing anyone wants to do is catch her attention, which quickly escalates from ire to fury to wrath -- but it was too late. She started making conversation, and I knew I was in her sights. When she told me I was a nice looking boy, I pretended not to hear. When she repeated herself, I developed a sudden fixation on my phone, managing to snipe this covert (albeit blurry) shot. Then she said, sort of speculatively, "It is alway a shame when nice looking kids die early."

Yipes!

That grabbed my attention, but I kept my head down.

When I still didn't answer, she paused, straightened up, and then said in a firm, clear tone: "You may be nice looking young boy, but with your tattoos, you will die early of blood poisoning." I could swear there was an erie moment of stillness on the 51, and I felt my guts turn cold. Then everything snapped back to normal, she turned to face the front of the bus, and I rode on in silence.

That, folks, is pretty much a hex.

Which means, during finals week and with a few airplane flights and a summer motorcycle trip in the works, that I am basically completely f-cking f-cked. Does anyone here know a cure? A way to forestall the spell? A skillful Good Witch, perhaps?


***************************

Tangentially, Boaltie 1L Samika shares some thoughts on law school, at the Shark. I would share a few remarks of my own, but I am currently preoccupied by my imminent journey to the underworld.

And the winner is ... Professor Lester?

From an anonymous tipster:

According to the University of California (and other public institution) salary database compiled by the Chronicle, who was the highest paid professor at Boalt (and the eighth highest paid person on the entire Berkeley campus) in the 2006-2007 fiscal year? Gillian Lester.

See for your self

(that should pull up the database, searched by campus for the UCB campus)

My guess is that those numbers reflect some flukey one-time payment or something, but still. Very interesting stuff. You can search by name, or by campus, or whatever.

Of course Tedford is #1 in the entire system with $2,756,654 gross compensation.

Take this Severance and Shove It

Over at Above the Law an email from a laid-off Paul Hastings associate has been posted. Here's the first paragraph of the email:

"The circumstances surrounding my departure from Paul Hastings have been deeply disappointing. It is one thing to ignore an email sent as a colleague is waiting to have her uterus scraped after a miscarriage, but it is wholly another level of heartlessness to lay her off six days after that. [Partner X] is the only one who expressed any sympathy after my miscarriage, and I am grateful to him for that."

And that's just a start, so head over to ATL to read the whole thing. This makes Paul Hastings look really bad (as it should), and no doubt they'll take a bashing in the blogosphere and perhaps even in their recruiting efforts on some campuses. But let's be honest--this could have been any big law firm. Oh sure, all the other firms will assure their associates that this type of thing would never happen at their law firm, where associates are so highly valued! But the truth is that every firm has some type of story like this lurking in a closet--Paul Hastings was just unfortunate enough to have it broadcast all over the Internets. The question to me isn't so much, What the hell is wrong with Paul Hastings? The question is, What the hell is wrong with a profession that has long tolerated this kind of thing?

One other note: Paul Hastings is obviously laying people off, but they are not alone. Most of these lay-offs will be couched as associate performance-related, instead of Firm performance-related. But 2Ls should be quietly watching this issue during the Summer and into next Fall.

Fatal Stabbings: Unhappy Thoughts During Law Finals...

From the Chron:

"A UC Berkeley engineering student was fatally stabbed early today in a sorority parking lot a few blocks south of campus, Berkeley police said.

The 21-year-old victim, a man whose name was not immediately released, was found stabbed at about 2:45 a.m. near 2434 Warring St., police said. The victim was due to graduate later this month and start graduate school in engineering at Cal this fall, his friends said, adding that he was from Southern California."

For those not totally familiar with the area: that's about two blocks down Piedmont from the law school, and one block up Channing (the street that intersects Piedmont with a roundabout). The incident took place in the back parking lot of the Chi Omega house.

I'll update the post if there's anything more I find.

----------

Update: further coverage from the Daily Cal (thanks to 3:40). In part

"UC Berkeley senior Chris Wootton, 21, was fatally stabbed outside his fraternity house early this morning. Wootton was found outside of Sigma Pi at 2434 Warring St., where friends say he was a member, around 2:45 a.m."

----------

One final update: the remainder of the information has surfaced. His attacker, a Berkeley City College student, has been arrested (foiled by cell phone cameras). Pictures, his name, and more information about the altercation may be found here.

My sincerest condolences to his family and friends. This is likely going to rock the Greek world here at UC Berkeley for a long time. Chancellor Robert Birgeneau said counselors would be available to help students and staff cope with the killing. I encourage anyone (including commenter at 7:30) to take advantage of this if necessary.

Rebate Checks: Happy Thoughts During Law Finals...

It's week 1 of the federal government rebate checks, and $7.1 billion has been sent out.

I've heard a lot of discussion among my fellow classmates as to what should be done with the money. As many of us face significant school debt, one approach is to pocket the money and take less in loans (or have more to pay them down). However, that approach isn't the way the government wants you to spend it. CNN tells us "the effectiveness of the stimulus package depends on whether taxpayers actually spend their rebate cash. If consumers save the money or use it to pay down debt or buy imported goods, that would provide a smaller boost to the economy, critics of the program say."

So, how about a [hopefully] fun and light-hearted discussion: How do you plan on spending the money?


And here's a handy chart as to when you'll receive your check:

Direct deposit payment
If last 2 digits of your SS# are:	Your rebate should be sent by:
00-20	May 2
21-75	May 9
76-99	May 16
Paper check
If last 2 digits of your SS# are:	Your rebate should be sent by:
00-09	May 16
10-18	May 23
19-25	May 30
26-38	June 6
39-51	June 13
52-63	June 20
64-75	June 27
76-87	July 4
88-99	July 11

Dude. Enough With the Eval Requests Already

If you are a Boalt student, your @berkeley inbox contains the following email:

"Please take a minute to complete your teaching evaluations. Not only are they important for feedback to faculty, but they also ensure you will have access to the online exam interface. Please do them now so you don't have to email me in a panic on Monday when you can't access your exams. Thank you! "

Anonymous in comments just asked:

Did we just get told that if we don't fill out evaluations, we won't be able to take exams? Not cool.

My first reaction was exactly the same.

My second reaction was to ask: why can't we submit evaluations AFTER we take the professor's exam? That's a rather huge part of the course . . . isn't it? And if a hypothetical professor's exam (*ahem* Torts *cough*) contains typos, confuses the gender of parties in the fact pattern, contains a deeply ambiguous set of instructions, and puts other stumbling blocks in the way of students' ability to perform, shouldn't that information make it into the evaluation process? Especially since student feedback is apparently so important, and taken so seriously? (*cough* the last five years of TeleBears *ahem*)

My third reaction was to wonder: is there some way Boalt's obsessive desire for student evaluations (today's was the fourth email I have received) can be converted to leverage for the release of the evaluations' narratives?

I Can't Believe It's a Law Firm

I meant for this to be on ink and paper, but since that doesn't look like it's happening, I figure I'll turn it into a post. Note: if you don't find it funny, it's because you have no sense of humor and don't watch enough of The Simpsons to catch my references. Also, this is all created in my head and does not refer to anyone I actually know.

***

As a law student I strongly suspected that people in the legal profession can be compared to the cast of The Simpsons. Now as a young attorney, my suspicions have largely been confirmed based on my exposure to the legal community at large. I would like to briefly outline some of The Simpsons characters that you may come across at your work-place.

Homer Simpson

I am certain that almost every firm, non-profit, government agency, etc. has a Homer in their midst. I'm not talking about a fat slob who eats 64 slices of American cheese in a single sitting—although that's certainly a possibility. No, I'm talking about the person who does the right thing by the purest of pure dumb luck. This person averts a nuclear litigation disaster by covering his or her eyes and counting "Eenie, meenie, miney, moe.” Voila, case dismissed. Sanctions averted. Smoking gun found. Homer also has numerous Grammys, Emmys, spacewalks, and other never-in-a-lifetime accomplishments under his belt. Almost all of them are because he did something stupid, such as make prank calls to NASA. Homer thinks that the late-Earl Warren was a stripper, and he is deeply distraught that Justice Souter is in fact a nerd. Homer is not likely to have his voicemail set up because he does not know how to use a touch-tone phone. When it comes to negotiations, the other side will cave in to Homer's demands out of frustration, but then realize that "Homer Simpson is not the brilliant tactician [they] thought he was." On pro bono matters, Homer will win accolades for his enthusiasm. However, he works hard on such matters only to get rid of them. Homer has an alcohol addiction. During the substance abuse CLE programs, people often whisper his name for that incident with "that beer that has candy floating in it, you know Skittlebrau." In short, Homer is your average partner, District Attorney, or other elected official, such as a Sanitation Commissioner.

Marge Simpson

Marge is also likely to be partnership material, but not for the same reasons as Homer. Marge is smart, works hard, and is very detail oriented. She got to her position of leadership based on skills, intellect, and possibly lying about speaking a foreign language on her resume. Although repulsed by the idea of working with Marge, a Homer Simpson finds her indispensable for covering up his own mistakes. Marge is the lawyer who thinks everything through. If you want to weigh all of your options then be sure to bring Marge into the team. She will second-guess every decision ever made. If the firm wants to legalize gambling, everyone will naturally turn to Marge as the voice of opposition. Marge is the constant nagger. Those who work for Marge will almost certainly hear her asking a million questions: Did you include this case? Did you cite to that? Did you use an M-dash instead of an N-dash? Marge will even hit "reply all" to correct a grammatical mistake. Because she works long hours without any vacation, Marge is prone to a complete nervous breakdown while driving to work.

Lisa Simpson

You probably went to law school with Lisa, especially if it was an ivy league law school. For undergrad, she went to one of the seven sisters. You know the type: academic standout, plays musical instruments, and pursued law for the greater social good—probably vegetarianism inspired by Paul and Linda McCartney. Lisa has only one or two others who can match her intellectual prowess. Unfortunately, she also has no equals when it comes to pissing off the vast majority of other people around. [Ed. note: Hmmm]. Lisa is the associate who joins a law firm only to pay off her loans as quickly as possible. She is repulsed at the thought of working for a Mr. Burns (see below). As long as Lisa works at a firm, she will be a royal pain in the butt. Unlike Michael Clayton, Lisa will not cross any ethical boundaries for the good of the firm or family. She is especially opposed to stealing cable and bootlegging alcohol. Partners will be frequently tempted to send Lisa to her room to avoid hearing her protests. Lisa will be the first in her class to leave a law firm for opportunities in Costa Rica.

Bart Simpson

Bart is Lisa's direct rival. Bart did not go to the best schools. More likely than not, Bart went to a state school for undergrad and a law school hanging on to accreditation by a thread. Yet Bart can talk his way out of any situation, especially a sanctions hearing of some sort. He proudly displays pictures of his fraternity brothers in his office. Bart is your ace golfer, star hockey player, and trained shoplifter. You probably know a Bart in your firm's Dallas office.

Maggie Simpson

I am convinced that all transaction departments consist of Maggie Simpsons. I have not heard any of them say anything more than "Dada?"

Grampa Simpson / Troy McClure

If your firm has a named partner who is still hanging around, chances are he is either a Grampa Simpson or a Troy McClure. The Grampa Simpson variety comes to work in slippers. He tells tales that are incredible on several levels (such as claiming to have chased the Kaiser diggety-six miles for stealing our word "twenty"). His name appears on all the briefs, but the work is really that of associates like Bart and Lisa. Grampa Simpson remains at the firm because of his relation to Mr. Burns during the Great War and because he's a freemason.

The Troy McClure variety is different. This is the senior partner who walks into your office and introduces himself thusly: "Hi, I'm Joe Partner. You might remember me from such cases as Hawkins v. McGee." The executive committee just can't get rid of him (see Sidley Austin), and he simply refuses to go away (see every single name partner still practicing today).

Lionel Hutz

He is rumored to be a lawyer, and he has law degrees from Harvard, Yale, MIT, Oxford, the Sorbonne, and the Louvre to prove it. You're probably not going to find Lionel Hutz as an attorney at a law firm. (The title of this essay is the name of Hutz's law practice). Instead, your firm is probably involved in the prosecution or defense of a legal malpractice claim against Hutz.

So what is Hutz like? For one thing, Hutz worries when one of his witnesses take the oath to tell the truth seriously. He goes to trial with only "hearsay and conjecture [which] are kinds of evidence." If you open to the bar discipline section of this very magazine, I guarantee at least a few of the attorneys mentioned sound like they apprenticed under Hutz. Did they promise a client to win their case in 30 minutes or the pizza is free? Did they run away screaming when the opposing party revealed ten high-priced lawyers? Did they tell a client, "Mr. Simpson, the state bar forbids me from promising you a big cash settlement. But just between you and me, I promise you a big cash settlement." Did they sue the producers of The Neverending Story for fraudulent advertising? Did they offer their clients a belt of Scotch at 9:30 in the morning? Ask any Lisa, and she will confirm that Hutz is simply a shyster, or "a latter-day Clarence Darrow."

Moe Szyslak

The difference between Moe Szyslak and Lionel Hutz is that Moe has not yet been disciplined. Moe will expunge that DUI on your record while selling you a pint of Duff. Moe also traffics in killer whales and participates in illegal gambling. He is probably an undocumented alien not authorized to work. Moe is your average solo practitioner.

Charles Montgomery Burns / Springfield Nuclear Power Plant

I'm sure every attorney occasionally feels like s/he is representing Mr. Burns or the Power Plant. If your clients has done any of the following, then they have something in common with Mr. Burns:

• Pollute the environment so much that it leads to mutations
• Eliminate a competitor (the sun) by completely blocking it out
• Bribe government officials
• Pay hefty fines
• Sexually harass employees
• Bust unions
• Determine Republican Party nominees for mayoral elections
• Hire ringers for the company softball league
• "Crush the freedom fighters before the start of the rainy season"
• Prepare propaganda films comparing self to Christ
• Use a recycling plant as a front for killing all ocean life
• Wear loafers made from former gophers

Nevertheless, as an important client of the firm, Homer will stop at nothing to please Mr. Burns—even sacrificing the blood of the young Bart associate.

Test Dummy

The blogosphere (and my inbox) lit up this evening with news about Boalt's "new hire." See a faculty profile here, and coverage here, and here. A PDF of the faculty list (in case it has changed) is here.

WTF? Why hire someone who is bad at tests?

Oh well. Stranger things have happened.

Tele-update[s]

[Lifted up to the top today for the update at the bottom]

So: the administration has responded to the Telebears "scandal" (see comments for full email).

Key quote: "Modifications will be made, beginning with the Spring 2009 iteration of Tele-BEARS, so that the appointments are assigned in a more randomized fashion."

First: Congrats Patrick, you've single-handedly taken down a system that has existed since 2003 within 24-hours of you wielding your sword.

Second: What does everyone think now?

------------

UPDATE: the school's student paper has picked up the story.  More specifics on what happened, as well as the school's [lack of] reaction, can be found here.

Berserkeley - A place we call home

I've used this soapbox to do a lot of complaining about Berkeley over the past year. Today, the Chron had an article that indicated Berkeley may not be all that crazy - at least some of the time.

The article looks at Berkeley "firsts," which include, "police radios, a ban on Styrofoam, health benefits for domestic partners and a switch to biodiesel for city cars."

So, here's to you, Berkeley, for all the good you've actually brought the rest of the world.

I apologize for this intermission. You may now get back to complaining about Berkeley's favorite pastime below...

More on Graduation Protests

I am posting this on behalf of someone else. No matter how many times I say this, people will still forget that I AM NOT THE AUTHOR OF THIS POST.

***

So, it seems like the protest plans are gathering steam. Not only will it be the hoary standbys in orange jumpsuits, but some actual lawyers and law students may come protest.

This means that not only will my aged and easily distracted father be annoyed by heckling from the aforementioned orange-jumpsuit-wearing septuagenarians as he approaches the Greek Theater, but he may also end up being distracted by shouting &c. during the ceremony, which could cause him to miss photographing that crucial shot of me holding my diploma-looking document in my teeth and flashing the Nixon double-Vs above my head.

The email below has had necessary portions redacted. Bolding is mine, to draw attention to the group's desire to only protest in appropriate ways... Note that my use of italics is to indicate I am being ironic: I do not think graduation is a particularly appropriate forum for protesting John Yoo.

----
Both [some very important person] of Equal Justice Society and I have received inquiries about staging a protest concerning John Yoo at Boalt, possibly at the Graduation Ceremonies or some other appropriate way. We are interested in having a preliminary meeting to discuss possible strategies that would both respect issues of academic freedom and express our concerns about John Yoo's memoranda concerning torture and executive powers. We have arranged meeting space near campus at Greenlining so that Guild and other Boalt student representatives and civil rights coalition members could discuss the possible protest.

We have reserved space for [Secret Time] on {Secret Date],[Secret Location].

I'm not sure we want to send it out too far and wide because there will be limited space, but please let individuals know about this meeting who may be interested and willing to come. [yet another influential person]- I apologize that this appears to be planned at the same time as the MLTF meeting, but maybe one person who has been active on this issue from MLTF can come out. [Shot Caller]- maybe you can update us on what happened at the WCW meeting last night - otherwise I will certainly contact you before Tuesday. Please RSVP to me if you will be there. Thank you.

{Big Boss]
National Lawyers Guild

Guess Who's Coming to Graduation!

A bunch of orange-suited protesters with faux electrodes tied to their balls!


--- On Thu, 4/24/08, actagainsttorture@riseup.net wrote:
From: actagainsttorture@riseup.net
Subject: Fire, Disbar, Prosecute John Yoo: Protest at 5/17 Graduation,
Boalt Law School
To: actagainsttorture@riseup.net
Date: Thursday, April 24, 2008, 9:42 AM

Friends & fellow-activists, You've probably followed this month's
revelation of the contents of John Yoo's legal brief of March 14, 2003,
advising the White House how it could get away with torture. Jameel
Jaffer, director of the ACLU's national security project, said Yoo's legal
reasoning puts "literally no limit at all to the kinds of interrogation
methods that the president can authorize. [...] The whole point of the
memo is obviously to nullify every possible legal restraint on the
president's wartime authority. The memo was meant to allow torture, and
that's exactly what it did." In the wake of the memo's release, the
National Lawyer's Guild has called for Yoo's dismissal from his position
at UC Berkeley, his disbarment, and his prosecution for war crimes. The
Center for Constitutional Rights has released a letter in support of this
call. While John Yoo is no longer deputy assistant attorney general for
the Bush administration's Office of Legal Counsel he is still a professor
at UC Berkeley's Boalt Law School. And Boalt is having their annual
graduation on the morning of Saturday, May 17th, at the Greek Theatre on
the east side of the campus. A reception at the law school, just around
the corner (southeast corner of the campus) will follow. We're going to
be there to demand he be fired, disbarred, and prosecuted. Will you join
us? Where: Hearst Greek Theatre, Berkeley California (east side of
campus, on Galey Rd) When: Saturday May 17, 2008 8am
(ticketed guests will all be inside by 9 -- you can take a nap in the
afternoon!!!) PLEASE RSVP by writing to ActAgainstTorture@riseup.net !!
We're looking for a major presence at this event now that John Yoo's full
complicity in attempting to grant the torture-administration immunity has
been revealed. The graduation ceremony starts at nine, but our protest
will happen BEFORE the ceremony, beginning at 8 am when the gates at the
Greek Theatre open to guests (only folks with tickets will be allowed
inside, but we'll have plenty of opportunity to make our point as
students, faculty, and families arrive through the two entrances to the
Greek Theatre). During the ceremony we'll take a coffee break, and will
return to line the route between the Greek Theatre and the Boalt Law
School where a reception will be held. We plan to have the usual orange
jump suits & our cage, lots of orange ribbons that we'll ask people to
wear inside the graduation, and excellent signs for the many of you we
expect will come out for this action. Please come out on May 17th!
Yours, Act Against Torture http://www.ActAgainstTorture.org

---------------

I'm deeply ambivalent about this. On the one hand, of course, I don't like that all of us students, who have worked so kind of hard for three years, and who are just looking for one morning to celebrate our accomplishments, and who have elderly and possibly not-quite-ambulatory grandparents in tow -- that we have to wade through a mass of shouting and screaming and...politics. Just to graduate.

But even in the larger context, this protest seems...well, 'counterproductive' is too generous. How about 'stupid'? In my post below, I think I made clear that I, like almost everyone at Boalt, disagree deeply with this country's torture policy that John Yoo helped instantiate. But if there's one lesson the last seven years have taught, it's that you have to VOTE to change things. The courts aren't going to save the liberals. Neither is the New York Times. Or Keith Olberman. Or YouTube. Liberals have to convince the rest of America to change.

Disrupting the graduation ceremonies of 3,00 well-educated, well-informed, wealthy, politically moderate parents and relatives with a raucous and inflammatory protest does NOT seem like a very effective way to do that. It seems like a way to piss off a lot of people who should be allies.

This isn't terribly surprising though. The American left has specialized and perfected the talent of alienating those who should be its strongest supporters. See, e.g., "Bitter, clinging to." This protest is part of a long tradition of digging the whole deeper.

Of course, on the other hand, to be fair, I can sympathize with their instincts. Yeah, this will generate a lot of media coverage. Yes, it'll keep torture in the news. It'll 'get their message out there.' And are we so sheltered as to need cover from a little political antagonism on a Saturday morning?

So I can see where they're coming from.

But it's important to remember that goading is not the same as convincing. Shouting is not strategizing. Disruption is not persuasion. For once -- for just one goddamn moment -- I wish these people would think about whether they're making more enemies than friends.

But perhaps I'm giving too much credit to people who have a canvas orange jump-suit hanging in their closet, at the ready.

California Faculty Swap Three-Way

As far as I can tell, Cynthia at The Shark scooped everyone on this tidbit: we didn't lose Dean O to UCLA. In fact, we may have merely traded her in on a newer model.

Cal Law published an article explaining that the "Boalt Hall School of Law [sic]" will be filling an academic support position with one Krist*n Holmq*ist, currently at UCLA.

And part of her new job description "will be to help address the student body's bar pass rate."

I have uploaded a pdf version of the article, which otherwise requires a free registration to view, here. It's worth looking at, as the article contains more discussion with Boalt faculty (including remarks from Dean Shel*nski and Professors Sw*ft, and B*ndy) on the issue that this (admittedly lowly) 1L has seen.

**********

And, speaking of frank discussion, the Boalt Briefs would like to pull on your coat about something for a moment:

Community,

In past years, the Boalt Briefs has offered a special bound collection of the year's issues. As this year's output has been embarrassingly small, it doesn't make sense to go through the trouble to create an elaborate binding. So, if anyone is interested in a full collection of the 2007-2008 run of the Briefs, please email me at boaltbriefs@gmail.com with your name and locker number, and I'll do my best to deliver a reprinted collection of the year's four issues (plus the mock BBB page), attached together with a staple. I have a limited number of issues, so please email quickly if interested.

Thanks,
BB EIC

Thou Shalt Count to Three, and Three Only

I guess current students got an e-mail about this, but alumni should know that there is an official memo on the name of our school. First, to all the law firms out there, please, please, update your associates' profiles. An example of the more egregious violations include:

"University of Berkeley School of Law" (for undergrad and law).
"Boalt Hall School of Law"

Second, at the risk of being petty, I'd like to point to commenter MikeM (scroll down), "Our official name is the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law." *Cough.*

Goodbye grants, you will be missed...

The financial aid office has released offer letters on Telebears. It's official: if you plan to work at a firm, you will (most likely) lose any chance at a grant.

I don't feel this is getting enough attention. The $4k DE grant for summer public interest work is well-known among current and future students. But, given the financial aid grants were in the neighborhood of $9k, this new grant policy makes that $4k seem trivial.

Effectively, a job in public interest will now result in grants upwards of $13k [or more] from the school. I only say "or more" because the extra money that isn't going to the students working for firms will most likely be redistributed to the public interest kids as well.

Any thoughts?

Straight From The Horse's Mouth Part Deux

A commentator points out that the original content of this post was incredibly petty. He totally busted me, and I apologize.

At any rate, this is the professors quotes thread for this spring.

Who the Heck is Joe Nation?

The following rather startling email, sent to the campaign of one Joe Nation, was cc'd to me this morning. 

To whom it may concern:

I got a call two nights ago from someone affiliated with a company called Peter Hart Research purporting to do a "survey" about a California state Senate race. The survey, it turned out, was actually a glorified smear-campaign targeted at Joe Nation. A good six or seven questions at the end of it recited a litany of impliedly disparaging things about Joe Nation, and then asked, "having heard X, Y, and Z, are you more or less likely to vote for Joe Nation?"

Frankly, I had never heard of Joe Nation, and wasn't even aware that there was a state Senate race in progress. But I thought that you should know that this was happening, and urge you to follow up on it. In the case of the particular survey that I took, I asked what Peter Hart Research was, and was told, erroneously, that it is an independent research organization. I know that that was erroneous because I subsequently had a conversation with a guy at Peter Hart Research, one David Drembus, who explained that their surveyor had improperly gone off-script, and that they are, indeed, a gun for hire doing work for one of Mr. Nation's competitors.

At the very least, I am appalled by the tactic of pushing information intending to be damning of a competing candidate in a forum designed to appear unbiased. At worst, I wonder if any state fraud laws, or federal election laws, may have been violated.

If you are interested in investigating this incident further, I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Sincerely,
[A Boalt Hall Student]

A cursory Google search indicates Joe Nation is a Democratic Senate candidate for California's 6th Congressional District (Marin and Sonoma Counties).

And Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc., founded in 1971, describes itself as a "strategic research, not just polling or market research" firm.

*************

04/24/08: Little update here . . .

I learned a great deal about polling this week, mostly from people who took the time to email me and explain the issues surrounding polling and testing of political messages. Turns out, it's far more complex than I made it sound. Frankly, it's far more complex than I understand. You can see I have redacted the push poll comment, and softened my admittedly confused position. Thanks to the four of you who took the time to educate me a bit.

Applause for John Yoo?

John Yoo closed his last formal constitutional law class of the semester today. Going in, I put the odds of perfunctory end-of-class applause at 50%. On the one hand, he’s an effective and endearing professor. On the other…well, you know – the electrodes-to-genitals thing.

It turns out that after a long wind-up of thanking us for the honor of teaching us, Yoo did get a nice round of clapping. From almost everyone. In a classroom in Berkeley. Yep.

(Although there seemed to be an almost-imperceptible hesitation just before the clapping, which was microseconds away from becoming awkward, I have no sense of timing or rhythm, so maybe it was just my imagination.)

I'm a good Democrat, but let's pause on the applause to appreciate the rage this will surely prompt among some on the far left. Just picture the apoplexy: Applause? For someone who should be fired or possibly shot? For a war criminal akin to Goebbels? For the person directly responsible for the worst crime of all: the precipitous drop in Boalt’s bar passage rates?! Mon dieu!

I don't want to make too much light of this. I basically think the policies Yoo helped instantiate were insanely misguided strategically and morally. But still. Why, in this bastion of Bizerkeleyism, did John Yoo receive applause?

What I think is going on here – if I may pluralize anecdote into data – is that most Boalt students have come to a few rough conclusions about Yoo. If I had to articulate the plurality sentiment at Boalt, it'd be this:

1. He’s a good prof. Not just in the sense of “students like him.” But in the sense that he’s teaching stuff correctly. That’s what’s so ludicrous about the suggestion, made by Slate’s Deborah Pearlstein and others, that he’s somehow flunking his academic duties by filling his students with one-sided propaganda. His class was scrupulously faithful to current doctrines on the foreign affairs and war powers, separation of powers, judicial review, treaties, executive appointments, executive privilege, and such. And about 10x more organized and detailed than certain other classes. Put it this way: if you want to learn con law for the CA bar (the “black letter” Pearlstein seems obsessed with), would you rather take it from Amar, HaLo, or Yoo? That’s what I thought.

2. He did wicked, wicked acts. With shoddy, shoddy legal work.

3. But the morality of torturing terrorists is an ambiguous and contestable idea – outside certain zipcodes in Berkeley, Chevy Chase, and Cambridge. As is the degree to which a strong executive is either normatively desirable or constitutionally sanctioned. So to demonize his facilitation of those doctrines is to see issues in absolutes that most people perceive in gray. Plus, give the guy a little credit for trying to serve American interests — at least as his superiors so (mis)defined them.

4. None of which is to excuse the very legitimate questions about professional ethics; the quality of the legal scholarship; the misunderstanding about the identity of the client; the blurring of the line between advocacy and neutrality; the validity of the “just taking orders” defense; the responsibility for the proximate results of his scholarship; the limits to academic freedom, etc .

5. But the answers to all those questions are not so clear-cut as to justify hounding the guy out of a job. Or refusing to clap if, for a welcome change, he does a good one.

Anyway, that’s the rough temperature of student sentiment I’m taking. And I draw it not just from the clapping – that’s a self-selected group of students willing to take his class (or suffer quietly for the great time-slot and the four units) – but from conversations with other students and reading this blog. Maybe I’m wrong. It’s just my informed opinion. It and $2.25 gets you a coffee at Zeb.

Hard Drives Fair Game at the Border

This SF Gate article discusses a recent Ninth Circuit holding. Apparently that there is no 4th Amendment violation when border patrol agents examine the content of travelers' laptops without probable cause reasonable suspicion:

Border agents would need grounds for suspicion before conducting a body search, but a "piece of property simply does not implicate the same dignity and privacy concerns as highly intrusive searches of the person," the court said.

Whaaaa?

A piece of property simply does not implicate the same dignity and privacy concerns as highly intrusive searches of the person???

First, yesterday's news suggests not everyone agrees that the long white finger is excessively intrusive--indeed, your friendly ER doc may be allowed to do what your border patrol agent cannot.

Secondly, why is it fair to conclude that the content of a laptop is not highly personal? What about privileged information, like medical records, attorneys' client files, or (closer to our hallowed halls) drafts of upcoming Boalt Briefs articles? I can imagine situations where, rather than give up the contents of my laptop, I would prefer to be subjected to a . . . wait . . .

Did I just almost say that?

****

Update: WSJ Law Blog picked it up, too. A commentator there asks, what about password protected information?

Administration Response Email on Bar Passage Rate

Attached (in the comments) is the administration's email to 3Ls regarding last year's bar passage rate.

Essentially, the administration finds that class rank and bar passage are correlated. And they're looking at helping "those people" with a pilot assistance program.

So: what do you think of (1) the administration's response email; (2) the findings presented; and (3) the proposed action?

PS: did anyone actually attend the town hall meeting and have any insightful comments to share with those who did not attend? Here's an insightful comment: I bet there are now at least a few of you who wish you had attended, armed with Patrick's post on Telebears (see below)...

Breaking UCB News: "Random" = Linear

Initially I thought I would need a couple hundred responses to confidently confirm or dis-confirm the TeleBears rumors.

But after about 120, the picture is clear. Painfully clear.



(4/17/08, 16:37. Thank you, Matt, for the graphic. Click to enlarge.)

Other resources (through 4/17/08):

Excel spreadsheet with all data (IP addressed deleted)
PDF of registration dates by law class
PDF of registration dates by undergraduate application
Link to the survey. (Helpful for interpreting the spreadsheet.)

The two PDFs include data from both 2009 and 2010, so they're a little jumbled. But the Excel document tells the whole story. It's true that there were some outliers (I'm sorry, but I remain politely skeptical that anyone has an appointment time between midnight and two AM) but oddballs notwithstanding, neither I nor the spreadsheet have any big surprises to share.

TeleBears Times are Allocated First by Class:

--The class of 2009 will register on the 23/24th
--The class of 2010 will register on the 24/25th

That shouldn't rub many of you the wrong way. A large percentage of you were comfortable allocating times by credits anyway.

What you will not like is this: whether, say, a particular rising 2L's registration day is the 23rd or 24th is not random. And it almost certainly never was. In fact, it is so glaringly un-random that I am flabbergasted anyone who actually knows could try to claim otherwise. I don't know who has been lying to DO, but I hope she stops by to kick their ass before she heads to Irvine. Here is the the breakout:

TeleBears Days Within Each Class:

Students who applied to UC Berkeley for their undergraduate studies have identification numbers substantially lower than those of us who did not. Even if a person was not accepted here for undergraduate work, their current student identification numbers are in the 1500xxxx range, compared to the 1990xxxx range from the class of 2010. On reasonable explanation is that denials of undergraduate admission created a record, which was re-activated by the law school application. (Another reasonable explanation is that there is a God, and He hates the rest of us. They're equally plausible.)

These lower numbers in turn correlate to earlier registration days -- people with identification numbers in the 1500xxxx range register on the first day of their class. People in the 1990xxxx range do not.

TeleBears Times Within Each Class:

Within each class, Telebears times correlate lock step to student ID numbers. The higher your number, the later your registration time. Every time. End of story.

But . . . . you knew that all along, didn't you?

Like most of you, I'm irritated.

My ability to experience a class with any of Boalt's celebrity professors is hamstrung by an arbitrary decision I made (or rather, didn't make) in 2000, when I began my college journey--namely, the decision to submit an application to Berkeley. Eight years later, CP II with B*ndy? Forget it. Evidence with Sw*ft? Yeah, right. Crim Pro with M*rphy? Nope.

I don't know if there is anything I can do about this right now, except to give a big shout out to the pointy-headed bureaucrats who have been collectively screwing an arbitrarily defined subset of Boalties for God only knows how long.

So, Pointy-Headed Bureaucrats: I don't appreciate you right now. Which, in case you missed it, is a polite way of saying something else entirely.

*sigh*

Maybe those of us at the tail end can can make a "Mod 13" or something. Since we'll be in the same classes for the next couple years, and all.

We can iron out the details this September . . . in Janitor Law.

*************

If you have not completed the survey, please do so here. It will take only a moment, and as the commentary notes, more responses are merrier.

Well, statistically speaking, anyway.

Supreme Court upholds use of lethal injections

From the Chron:

"The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the most common method of lethal injection executions, likely clearing the way to resume executions that have been on hold for nearly 7 months.

The justices, by a 7-2 vote, turned back a constitutional challenge to the procedures in place in Kentucky, which uses three drugs to sedate, paralyze and kill inmates. Similar methods are used by roughly three dozen states, including California."

The two dissents don't surprise me (Ginsburg, Souter). But the 7 Justice majority seems a tad higher than I thought it'd be. Any thoughts?

There is Something Ironic About Where I Now Sit

Speaking of surveys, we touched on this earlier issue last fall, but it is happening at University of Chicago Law: no more internet in class.

Discussion also at WSJ Law Blog.

According to the article, ten other law schools have already called to ask about the move. What are the odds Boalt makes that list?

Let's Out TeleBears!

Something about the TeleBears Phase I appointment times is fishy.

And unless you work in the Registrar's office, DO's office, or on Pluto, you know EXACTLY what I am talking about.

The truth doesn't have to be a speculative matter, and it doesn't have to be taken as an article of faith. Whether students' TeleBears appointment times correlate to their undergraduate application/enrollment at UC Berkeley is, in fact, an empirical question.

So let's find out, shall we?

If you are a current student at Boalt, please take this very short, seven question, multiple choice survey. It will take about 20 seconds of your day. 40 if you take it twice (but please don't do that). As long as there are enough participants, the results will put this question to bed.

Lastly, if you are not currently a Boaltie, feel free to look at the survey but please refrain from actually answering any questions. We like you and all, but your input on this one will screw everything up.