Skip to My Lunch

So tomorrow I have a lunch date with the person hired by Boalt to revamp the school's website. He's the latest admin to read the blog (always a delight, although nothing can top DE quoting a comment during one of his townhalls). I'm going to make a couple of assumptions: 1) he's powerless to do anything that is remotely connected to the main campus, e.g., telebears, bearfacts, calmail, and all the other horror stories that collectively comprise Berkeley IT; 2) Boalt isn't willing to go on a shopping spree to say for example buy a couple of servers to provide all students with permanent at berkeley.edu e-mail addresses (it would basically work as a permanent e-mail forwarding system, not an actual e-mail system. UCLA students know what I'm talking about).

With that in mind, feel free to offer SF any pearls of wisdom using the comments.

Hip, Hip, Jorge!

Congratulations are in order to our very own Dean Edley. He is now a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. And I used the title because I love the ESPN ad so much. (2nd Video here).

Smokey and the Scalia

Today the SCOTUS ruled in Scott v. Harris that it is not a 4th Amendment violation if a police officer "terminates" a high speed chase when the lives of bystanders are endangered. The ruling is 8-1 (Stevens dissenting). But what's really interesting is the Court put the video of the chase up on its website.

You need to watch the whole thing. The first half is from the officer that's in the lead car until towards the very end, when Officer Scott passes him and then rams the car. They have a term for that maneuver but I can't think of it right now. Anywho, watching the video as a potential juror, I can EASILY conclude that it was unreasonable to end the chase. ALL they had was the fact that Harris was not stopping. That's it.

I realize I'm from California. NASCAR racing did not originate from here because our drivers were trying to outrun the cops. We also have police departments with policies not to pursue someone on the ground unless they have information about the suspect, such as wanted for a felony, etc. THAT is a reasonable way of avoiding danger to the public. Food for thought.

Sunday Literary-ism

As I start to feel a little bit of anticipatory nostalgia about California, law school, and the people I know here, I’ve been thinking about T.S. Eliot. Here are the first four lines of “The Waste-Land”:

April is the cruellest month, breeding
Lilacs out of the dead land, mixing
Memory and desire, stirring
Dull roots with spring rain.

Here are the last four of “The Hollow Men”:

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper Con Law Exam.

Falling Down

Via CNN:

The fire melted a second interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound I-580 located above the first interchange, causing a 250-yard section of the roadway to collapse onto the roadway below, according to the highway patrol.

Holy crap! So basically the spaghetti will be closed for a while. There isn't much to say, is there?

UPDATE: The folks at KRON 4 have created this blog to cover the collapsed freeway. I find it mildly amusing. The best part is how their suggested alternate route is torn to shreds by the commenters.

Saturday Editorial

Professor Yoo wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal today. The article is posted here (not free).

The editorial responds to criticism of the Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, in particular, the various suggestions that the Court's majority made its decision based on its Catholicism and not the law.

The heart of the editorial is these two paragraphs:

Playing the religion card is worse than silly because it shows how intellectually lazy the liberal defense of Roe has become. There are many reasons why the Court upheld the federal partial-birth abortion law, but not a state ban that it struck down in 2000. The Court found the state law too vague, while the federal law is more specific about the prohibited procedures. The Court may have been demonstrating more respect for the judgment of Congress than that of the states. Or the Court may have been following public opinion: Polls show that a majority of Americans agree with the partial-birth abortion ban. Almost two-thirds of the Senate, including Democratic Sens. Patrick Leahy and Harry Reid voted for it. Four years ago, today's critics didn't ask whether Mr. Leahy's and Mr. Reid's votes were inspired by their Catholic or Mormon faiths.

Rather than develop reasoned responses to the Court or the arguments of conservatives, liberal critics resort to the mystical for easy answers. They suggest that irrational religious faith or pure Catholic doctrine handed down from the Vatican drives the Justices. It is much easier to dismiss your opponents as driven by mysterious forces than to do the hard work of developing arguments built on human reason. This religious critique recalls the nativist fear of Catholicism that too often appears in U.S. history. Senate Democrats appealed to the same bias when they filibustered judicial nominees for their "deeply held" religious beliefs, as Sen. Charles Schumer said of now-circuit judge William Pryor.

The editorial loses focus at the end, but I found it convincing. The anti-catholic accusations impugn the integrity of five people who took oaths (no doubt on Bibles!) to uphold the Constitution. Such accusatons also undermine the credibility of the Court. Finally, such accusations smack of religious bigotry.

That aside, the editorial does call out critics of the decision as "intellectually lazy." I recall the comments thread here being quite active after this decision (and without a post to fuel it), so I thought I'd use this editorial as a jumping off point for people to discuss the editorial, the validity of the criticisms, and the merits of the decision.

White Men at Work

The DOJ will now leave politics out of the hiring process for SLIP and the Honors program. What really strikes me are the comments on this VC thread for example. Basically, if I have the conservative mindset right, using politics to hire someone is ok, but using race or gender is not.

What is an Argument?

Regardless of what Monty Python says, THIS is not good argument. I just uploaded the clip.

WANTED: A Box Full of Books

Dear lurking alumni,

It appears my classmates are getting BarBri books. I should get in on that. I have heard that BarBri was willing to buy back your books for $125. Now is the time to be rewarded for your wisdom in telling them to shove it. I am willing to offer the going eBay rate and pay shipping for your box of materials needed to take the California bar.

If you would like to convert your crate of green and brown books into a few cool hundies, please email me, tfletcher, at our humble school's edu address. You'll be a helping a thrifty, albeit fatuous, fellow Boaltie fulfill his dream of becoming a real lawyer (use Pinnochio voice).

Friday, OFFER RETRACTED. Thank you alumni!

You've Lost All Your Boalt Privileges

Well, you guys saw DE's letter. First, I really want to stress that this thread doesn't mean you are now free to speculate as to the identity. I really mean it. Second, feel free to comment on the punishment and/or procedures. I will say that when I visited Wash U. this past summer, I was shocked to see written opinions regarding allegations of honor code violations pinned up on bulletin board. It was as if instead of Boalt Briefs they had accusations of looking at a commercial outline.

Unrelated to all this, I'm about to run over to the City for an interview with California lawyer magazine on how Boalt students feel about John Yoo. My own thoughts are fairly simple: I couldn't disagree more with his personal views of the Constitution, but I think he's a good teacher and scholar. Reasons for this are straight forward: (a) he's great in the classroom. I love sarcasm, what can I say; (b) I've only heard his personal views once or twice, and it was in the Con in Early Republic class, never in the Con Law Structural; (c) I don't have any firs-hand accounts of this, but I do know he's very helpful if you are doing a writing assignment and/or researching for him; (d) publishes. I'm sure the "war criminal" crowd will make its presence known. The reason I mention this is to allow everyone to express how they feel. The reason I'm meeting with the reporter is to express how Boalties feel about him. If you have thoughts, offer it up here, and I'll refer the thread over to the reporter.

But in both cases, NO WITCH HUNTS. I mean it kiddies.

BarBri Books are Available

Note to 3Ls: you can pick up your BarBri books in the courtyard from 11-3 tommorrow (Thursday). If you can't do that, you can pick them up at a BarBri office or have them FedEx'ed to you for $35.

I wish BarBri would have sent a reminder email less than 3 weeks ago, because obviously people are worrying about other things right now, and I'm sure many students weren't even planning on being on campus today or tomorrow. I'll re-propose a Bar Czar, who can send out reminder emails about this type of thing.

Due Process Matters

I'm happy to say that the California Court of Appeal reversed and vacated a gang injunction in the Broderick Boys case. Shocking as it is, it turns out that you cannot serve one member of a group with notice of a hearing on a preliminary injunction, get a default judgment and permanent injunction, and then magically be able to serve almost every member of the group with the permanent injunction. Thanks from a grateful citizen on this one to the ACLU and our very awesome faculty graduation speaker.

Funny quotes from the case smacking down the DA:

"Cases are not authority for points not considered."

"Although three of the appellants filed their addresses with the authorities, the district attorney did not serve them, or other alleged gang members with similarly-filed addresses. . . . Looking up some addresses is not too much to expect. "

"Third, the district attorney could have obtained approval to publish notice in the press. Instead, he waited until the permanent injunction was a fait accompli to publicize it. "

"Contrary to implications from the district attorney’s briefing and argument, appellants did not need to show that they had a good defense once they showed that the judgment was void
for lack of service."

Don't get me wrong. The Broderick Boys may well deserve a biting injunction to save a Sacramento neighborhood. But that's a question for a court to decide on the basis of evidence, with parties present. I'll close with my title: Due Process Matters.

Prince Harry

Speaking of quotes, "I'm not going to get into a name-calling match with somebody who has a 9 percent approval rating." -- Sen. Harry Reid responding to Dick Cheney's frothing at the mouth.

At Least It's an Ethos

More quotes, this time from Prof. Int'l Law (AG) and Prof. EU Law (RB), respectively.

***

“Nobody move...I’ve got another slide. This is like getting extra candy.”

“You and I can conclude a treaty dividing up the territory of the United States, but it wouldn’t hold up because neither of us has the power to do so. Well, at least I don’t have the power to do so, I don’t know your biography well enough.”

“We know that with prisoners of war, you can’t keep them forever. At least we used to know that.”

“It was adopted in 1789. I guess it was fairly early in the history of the United States. That was supposed to be a joke.”

“There is nothing more exciting than the drama of jurisdiction.”

“The United States has a free-speech fetish.”

“It quacks like a bond.”

“Turns out saving is really cool. It’s cool because it’s magic.”

“Visa doesn’t like you.”

“It’s as if high fructose corn syrup is in the credit cards.”

“If you trade down a little bit...I drive a Jetta.”

“I’m going to sound like Don Rumsfeld now, but we have to know something before we know we’re uncertain.”

***

“If you think tariff law practice is boring, Agriculture law is the essence of boring.”

“It took a German to bring this case. It took a German to bring Protestantism, and it took a German to bring this case.”

“Undertaking is the official EU term of art for enterprise. You’d think there are funeral parlors all over Europe.”

“The DaimlerChrysler merger is very cute.”

"I still occasionally take valium when flying that has an expiration date in 1999."

“The British taste is so bad, it shouldn’t be surprising that they allow all sorts of substitutes for cocoa.”

To Use the Parlance of our Times

As is my tradition, here are some quotes from Professor Estates and Trusts, aka, the Big R.

***

“Maybe you don’t care because you’ll be dead.”

“A lot of you will be worth $10 million when you’re dead even discounting for inflation. Ok $5, $5 million.”

“Don’t wait till you’re dead, give it to me now”

“If you don’t, stay unmarried, or marry a Shiksa...”

“Bury your possessions with you, citing Egyptian precedent.”

“It’s to promote equality between the very, very rich and the very rich. I really am not kidding. This is the reason for the generation skipping tax.”

“It’s always a tradeoff with me between student participation and the transfer of knowledge.”

“This family doesn’t do very well.”

“Some people think it’s not romantic to talk about who owns what.”

“We’d like to make your life as miserable as possible so we won’t allow you to be adopted by better people.”

“When you became an adult, you yourself could have consented to an adult adoption. Didn’t think of that, did you?”

Student: “How would one go about an adult adoption? I mean, where do you go?”
BR: “I’ve never done it myself.”

“You can only adopt one adult per year in California.”

“The mother advantages her daughter by dying. Not the only such instance in this course.”

“The best way to create a small fortune is to leave a large one to a trust.”

“People do dumb things, and usually we let them do dumb things.”

“Writing ‘I cancel this will’ does not cancel the will any more than writing ‘I burn this will’ burns the will.”

“I can’t imagine someone trying to admit a will and then saying HA HA HA it was a joke. A very funny joke.”

“What can you buy for $30K? Nothing. Maybe a quarter of a garage.”

“If you recognize that marriages often breakdown, you might want to keep separate property separate.”

Student: “What’s a defacto wife?”
BR: “Yeah that’s an Australian idea.”

Student: “This guy uh basically uh died.”

BR: “Umm [student] do you have a thought?”
Student: “Well I do, I don’t know if it’s worth much.”

“Some people like to do business on the edge.”

“These are upstanding states. Cayman Islands, Cook Islands, and the like.”

“He knew he was going to be the trustee and he knew he was probably a jerk.”

“I don’t understand people who think they’re going to get rich without ever working a day in their life. They’re just dumb.”

BR: “Justin?....Justin?”
Student Walking In: “Yeah right here.”
BR: “Ummm I’ll get back to you in a minute.”

“Most people prefer to have power, as opposed to its absence.”

[Dead hand control] “It’s unsightly. It’s just as unsightly for someone to make a bust of themselves and plop it up on some land.”

“Florida’s Rule Against Perpetuities is 360 years. It’s 360 because that’s 4 times 90. Why four? I don’t know.”

“In a case like this you gotta wonder what kind of a person is going to sue to take money away from the kids. Should have the person audited or something.”

“Crazy, yes. But there’s a kind of genius to his madness wouldn’t you say?”

“It is exemplary art in the same way politicians are exemplary in integrity.”

“Other countries that we regard as clearly uncivilized, Canada and Australia, have done away with the estate tax.”

“You might think Ikea is a family owned business. It’s not. It’s a charity...whoever set this up, is brilliant. Just brilliant.”

“Do we feel sorry for O? No, I never feel sorry for people in these situations.”

“Oh by the way, [James] Simons got his PhD from Berkeley...at the age of 23.”

Rule of Law Exams

Every semester it’s the same thing. On the last day of class the professor talks for a couple of minutes about the exam, explains the format of the test, what materials you may use, etc. Then s/he makes a gigantic mistake: s/he asks a room full of law students if they have any questions about the test.

It usually starts innocently enough, perhaps with some clarifying questions. Then it starts to get a bit silly, as students ask questions that have already been answered, or fish for information about particular topics on the exam. Within just a few minutes it has turned downright ridiculous. Students start asking what material they should focus on. Or they want to know the exact number of questions on the test. “Exactly what is the format of the multiple choice questions,” they might want to know. “What kind of answer gets a HH?” “Can you make all exams dating back 20 years available to us?” "Would you say that Chapter 7 is particularly important?" Every class I’m tempted to ask, “Can you please tell me all the questions on the exam as well as give me all the answers? Because that would make my studying much easier.”

Professors are under no obligation to give us any more information than absolutely necessary, which so far as I can tell consists of the type of test (multiple choice or essay), a very general idea of format, and clear guidelines about allowable materials. Any further information that’s withheld is withheld from all of us, so no one is unfairly advantaged or disadvantaged. None of us are entitled to anything more than the most basic information about the exam, so quit asking 40 questions in order to gain some sort of perceived advantage. If you need to ask clarifying questions that’s fine, but otherwise just study what you need to study, and take the exam as it comes.

HELP!!!!

So I have been conscripted into creating a slideshow for 3Ls to be played at the DownLow this Thursday night. I need HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELP.

a) Pictures. Lots of them. E-mail them to me at my gmail account (in the profile) or if you have too many, be kind enough to burn them onto a CD and drop them in my locker ASAP.

b) Technical Help. I don't have software to put together a DVD. If I were to create a powerpoint, can I create one where a different song plays intermittently? Dear God I need help.

Sunday Literary-ism

By the time most people finish writing a book about something, they usually think the subject is pretty important. Judge Posner is the only person I know of who wrote a whole book about a multidisciplinary field of study, only to conclude that there was no special value in combining the two subjects. Such a book is his 1998 _Law and Literature_.

I basically agree with Posner on this. I think it’s sometimes fun to write about law and literature, but I don’t think it’s very important. However, I do think law and literature share an impulse to give order/shape/structure to human experience. (I realize a lot of other endeavors share that impulse—I’m just saying it’s something the two have in common.)

Wallace Stevens was a lawyer, a businessman, and a fairly significant American poet, at least according to people who view poetry as an academic field. His writing is abstract, but beautiful in its own weird and inscrutable way. One of my favorites (albeit one of his weirdest) is The Idea of Order at Key West. The key part is the last five lines. Here is a chunk from the beginning:

She sang beyond the genius of the sea.
The water never formed to mind or voice,
Like a body wholly body, fluttering
Its empty sleeves; and yet its mimic motion
Made constant cry, caused constantly a cry,
That was not ours although we understood,
Inhuman, of the veritable ocean.

And a chunk from the end. You’re not supposed to know who Ramon Fernandez is. Stevens liked to throw ordinary person- and place-names into his poems.

Ramon Fernandez, tell me, if you know,
Why, when the singing ended and we turned
Toward the town, tell why the glassy lights,
The lights in the fishing boats at anchor there,
As the night descended, tilting in the air,
Mastered the night and portioned out the sea,
Fixing emblazoned zones and fiery poles,
Arranging, deepening, enchanting night.
Oh! Blessed rage for order, pale Ramon,
The maker's rage to order words of the sea,
Words of the fragrant portals, dimly-starred,
And of ourselves and of our origins,
In ghostlier demarcations, keener sounds.

Read the whole thing.

Alexander Dumbass

Everyone is clammoring for more info on the Boalt 1L who posted a threat on autoadmit, leading to the shutdown of Hastings. I've been trying hard to find out how it is, but there's not much out there. There's a nice roundup of the pertinent details at this Hastings blog. What REALLY fascinates me is his post here from back in August. If the threat isn't enough to shed light into this guy's psyche, then that thread should remove all doubt. Basically, he's the prototypical DB who is here at Boalt because it's the highest "ranked" school he got into.

I never visit any of the law school discussion boards, and I get pissed off when people link to comments or posts here on those boards. This often happens when a Boalt student reads something on this blog and links on autoadmit to start a flamewar. The most egregious case of this was when I posted about DR's shooting. But anyway, that's a personal pet peeve of mine. If you have something to say, say it here. You don't need your "hommies" from bottom of the cyberbarrel to back you up.

More substantively, did ANYONE get DE's message prior to this morning? I'll chalk that up to a technical oversight or something, but it's a bit disheartening to find out what my Dean has to say about all this from an e-mail forward from colleagues at UCH. And of course, most importantly, always remember that just because you go to Boalt doesn't mean you're not a jerk. We should all think about that. My my how quickly we generalized when one Hastings 1L sent a benign e-mail. I wonder if this idiot was one of those posting flames against Hastings? Bottom line: I can speak for some Boalties in saying we're sorry that an idiot among us caused you so much trouble, inconvenience, and probably worry. And if you have a name, we can make sure he spends the rest of his law school life in social hell.

Dear God

What are the chances that this is true? (HT: Drum). I'd say 100%. Sorry Boalties, and you thought you had a shot at the Honors Program or an internship at the DOJ. If any 1Ls can disprove the central theory of the letter, chime in on the comments.

Update: Damn you E-dub for beating me. Alright, I'm closing comments here to move discussion to his thread, if any.

What? The Deputy AG of the United States Rejected Me PERSONALLY? Wow.

So did you apply to the DOJ Summer Law Intern program too? I did. Like a lot of 2Ls, I applied broadly to private, public interest, and government employers. I had a modest amount of success with just about each.

But not with the DOJ. I didn't hear a word -- not a peep, not an email, not an interview request throughout the fall and into the winter. Eventually, sometime in February, I received word that I wouldn't be considered for a position.

At the time, I briefly wondered a) what took so long (they were supposed to respond by October) and b) why I did better with just about every other employer.

Now comes a possible explanation: I got axed for having the wrong politics. According to a post on Speaker Pelosi's blog, her office recently received an anonymous letter from DOJ employees alleging a new and sudden politicization of both the Attorney General's Honors Program (for graduating students) and the Summer Law Intern Program (for 2Ls).

Apparently, as they always do, DOJ sections (like antitrust, civil rights, etc.) sifted apps in the fall to compose a list of interviewees for the programs but, for the first time ever, the list got kicked up to a "screening panel" at the Office of the Deputy Attorney General. When it came back, scores of names were crossed off, so much so that "one section was not permitted to interview any of its choices for the Summer Law Intern Program."

And what did the axed candidates all have in common? You know the answer, of course: They all worked for Democrats or Democratic causes.

Needless to say, the politicization of the intern program may represent a new--if not laughable--low for the DOJ and AG AG. Only Federalist Youth allowed near the photocopier!

(Or, as the anonymous whistle-blower put it better, "While it might be said that whoever wins an election can do the hiring, this new hiring procedure is contrary to DOJ tradition. The Department represents the entire country and has always had attorneys from a variety of schools and political leanings. There should be no litmus test for a top law student to get an interview at the Department of Justice.")

As for my story, it's certainly possible I was just a plain old bad candidate on the merits. But, I got to be honest, I don't think so. But my resume is filled top-to-bottom with liberal and Democratic work. All of which gives me some shivers to think that, somewhere in the recesses of a federal building in Washington DC, some hack Bush political appointee glanced at my resume and exclaimed, "Don't let that liberal in here!" It's an honor just to be a victim. Really it is.

Anyone with more information or speculation or their own experience is encouraged to comment. Is ANYONE at Boalt working for the DOJ this summer? (Also note the great line in the letter about the "Harvard Career Placement Office" calling DOJ directly to find out what was up. They don't take no for an answer at Hahvad, seems like.)

Of course, all of this begs the obvious question: What was I thinking wanting to ever work -- even tangentially, even for a summer -- for this corrupt administration in the first place?

Tony Tony Tony

Abortion case was handed down this morning, and not surprisingly AMK sided with the conservative block. SCOTUSblog is on the beat here. He is also solidly with the conservatives on the use of race/affirmative action cases. So be forewarned, on the two hotbutton issues, the conservatives are going to have a solid majority.

Shooter McHoakie

I don't want to trivialize the tragedy that befell the campus of VT today, but I'm starting to get REALLY annoyed with the media trying to manufacture a scandal out of the notification procedures used by the school. As I write this, there's some fatuous blowhard who is yapping about how the e-mail notification was inadequate.

This is beyond a hindsight is 20/20 situation. It's just plain stupid. While Cal is a bit larger than VT, can you imagine alarm bells going off any time there's a shooting somewhere near campus? Hell there was a dead body found in the dumpster of a sorority and I bet very few people even found out about it. The blowhard is yapping about using text messages to warn people. Warn them of what? (Suggested canned text messages: "Duck the bullets!"; "Classes canceled. XOXO Prez."; "No salad bar to any freshman caught shooting. This time we mean it.") There are thousands of people at any one time already on campus. There's very little you can do against a gun. Furthermore, all police had at the time were two dead bodies. Are these idiots seriously suggesting that an entire university the size of a Montana town stop functioning when there is any homicide?

Paula Zahn: "A LOT of students and parents are angry that the university did not immediately go into lockdown after the first shootings."

What? Lockdown? This isn't some high school Paula. They're not little kids. How do you lock down Cal, for example? You can't lock down Downtown Berkeley, West Oakland, or Emeryville any more than you can lock down a college campus the size of VTech. That's just unrealistic. However, I predict that at some point tomorrow we will get an e-mail from Birgeneau detailing Cal's emergency response procedures.

The enormity of what happened is beyond compare. I can only hope no other school or community experiences. You can't try to stop something of this magnitude with text messages. You just can't. Now if people in the classrooms had unfettered wireless access...

Fall 2007 Course Offerings

Per commenter request, discuss away. My thoughts:

1. There must be more classes coming.

2. Three years of waiting, graduation (hopefully), and now, now Choper teaches Constititonal Law. This will be the class to see.

3. I highly recommend Securities Regulation with Prof. Rose.

UPDATE: Invisible hand moving post up.

What a Day

Today is Holocaust Rememberance Day. Sixty plus years after the fact, we still have ethnic hatred raging throughout the world and the goal of getting rid of the Jews has merely shifted office locations.

Today is also the day Jackie Robinson broke the color line of MLB in 1947. (As an aside, he was a varsity athlete in four sports at UCLA: baseball, football, basketball and track). Think about that for a second. Only sixty years ago, probably when your grandparents and some of your parents were still alive, no African-American could play professional baseball with Whites.

And if I'm not mistaken, tax deadline is April 17 because today is Sunday.

Vonnegut, cont'd.

My favorite part of Vonnegut's life is that, while struggling to make it as a writer, he sold cars on Cape Cod at a Saab dealership. Can you imagine trying to buy a car from Kurt Vonnegut?

Customer: I’m looking for a fast car.

Vonnegut: This one right here will take you where you want to be before you want to be there.

Customer: Wow. So it goes...really fast?

Vonnegut: So...it...goes [distant look in eye]. That’s exactly what I’m talking about.

Customer: Alright, good, now we’re getting somewhere. Tell me about the warranty.

Vonnegut: Why do you need a warranty? Does life come with a warranty?

Customer: I’m concerned about safety.

Vonnegut: Then you should be inside your house right now, with the blinds drawn, head down, gripping rosary beads.

Customer: It’s my day off. That’s not really an option.

Vonnegut: Then there’s nothing I can tell you about this car that you won’t already know after I tell you.

Customer: I’m getting confused. Let me ask you, have any customers bought this exact model?

Vonnegut: Kilgore Trout bought one last week. Took it to a clambake. Big hit with the kids.

Customer: I’m not big on clambakes.

Vonnegut. Neither is Kilgore Trout. I should also note that this particular car runs not on ordinary gasoline, but on something called ‘ice-nine.’ If used incorrectly, it could destroy the entire universe, as well as your transmission.

Customer: Ummm...

Vonnegut: Oh I’m just fucking with you!

Customer: I’m sensing you’re not too excited to be a car salesman.

Vonnegut: That would be correct.

Crappy Courses of the Fall

This post is dedicated to the gunner 1L who is obsessed with course offerings in the fall. Thank you for posting in every thread.

Plug for the Arts

If you’re looking for a cultural way to spend this Sunday evening, consider heading to Walnut Creek for the Contra Costa Wind Symphony’s “Cool Hot Sounds of South America” concert. I play trumpet in the group.

The concert features Paraguayan harpist & violinist Carlos Reyes. Let me tell you, he is worth hearing. The CCWS will perform other pieces from South America or inspired by its peoples & music: Argentina, Brazil, the Andes, and the Caribbean.

The performance is at 8pm at the Lesher Center for the Arts (925-943-SHOW for tix). It’s close to BART & there are plenty of restaurants nearby. Since it’s Walnut Creek, parking is cheap.

If case you were wondering, here’s how this relates to this Blog: 0Ls, when you come to law school, do not give up your extracurricular activities. Indeed, maintaining or discovering a hobby that keeps you doing interesting things and meeting new people is good for you, as is getting away from Berkeley frequently.

Taxicab Recession

Last year, when I had just flewn into SFO after a call-back interview, I took a cab right back to Berkeley. The cab driver turned out to be an Armenian. We struck a conversation about this and that (you know, the home country, having sex with sheep, etc.). He then couldn't understand why I'm not going to plop down money to buy a home right away. Apparently he owned a $700,000 house in Livermore.

Well now Chuck Schumer is calling for Federal aid to home owners who are having trouble paying their mortgages. At the risk of out Tom Fletchering Tom Fletcher, I just really don't get this. Why? I mean I don't expect everyone to be an econ major. I don't even expect people to make wise decisions (see Tversky and Kahneman). And yes, there was some shady lending practices by financially savvy institutions who shouldn't have been exploiting a family's dream to own a home. BUT, despite all that, I don't understand why the Fed government has to bail out people who made a stupid decision. I just don't get it.

Vote Online - Less than 5 mins

Grad students need a stronger voice on campus. We can achieve that stronger voice in part by voting at http://election.asuc.org right now.

You can bypass the candidates and go straight to the referenda. They all directly affect grad students, including law students. Here are my recommendations:

- The Student Union Complex Referendum (YES): This referendum gives graduate students (and undergrads too) a strong voice in the redevelopment of the Student Union Complex in the greater Lower Sproul. This would mean have the complex include a graduate student center, a grad lounge & bar, and many other grad-focus amenities on campus.

- The Student Life Fee Referendum (YES): This referendum supports ASUC SUPERB, the Cal Band, the UC Jazz Ensembles, the UC Choral Ensembles, and graduate student groups.

FYI: YOU CAN'T ACCESS IT FROM AIRBEARS. PLEASE USE YOUR OWN WIRELESS OR A LANDLINE COMPUTER ON CAMPUS.

If you have questions about the other referenda or candidates, send me an email at jrdaniels@berkeley.edu.

Josh

Hot for Teacher

Barack Obama was on Letterman the other night (video: Part 1 and Part 2). For some unexplained reason, the Republican National Committee used this as an opportunity to launch an early attack on Obama. For additional unexplained reasons, they put the attack in the form of a Top 10 List entitled “Obama’s Top 10 Fabrications.” The list is here. A couple of my favorites from the list: (8) Obama was fluent in Indonesian as a child; (2) Obama had heated discussions with a high school friend named “Ray” about racial issues; (1) Seeing a photograph in Life or Ebony Magazine changed Obama’s life.

I have no idea if any of those are in fact fabricated, and I don’t particularly care much, but I thought one item was especially relevant. The number 10 “fabrication” states: “Obama was a constitutional law professor.” Obama has said that he was a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago, but according to the Top 10 List this is a fabrication because Obama was actually a “Senior Lecturer in Law.” The U. Chicago Law School website confirms this.

So, was this really a fabrication? Was Obama wrong to claim that he was a law professor? In actual fact he was not a Professor of Law, in the technical sense of the term. He was not tenured or a full-time faculty member, as during the time he taught his primary job was either with a plaintiff’s law firm or as an Illinois State Senator.

Despite this, I have no problem with Obama calling himself a law professor. First, we refer to nearly anyone who teaches law as Professor, regardless of whether that person is tenured or a practitioner. Perhaps this is just colloquial speech, or perhaps it is just polite, but I doubt that many of us mind if the many practitioners teaching at Boalt call themselves Professors. It would be quite disrespectful, in fact, if we insisted on sharp distinctions between “Professors,” “Lecturers,” and “Practitioners.” Second, Obama taught constitutional law for around a decade. If Obama had only delivered a few lectures his use of “law professor” would be questionable. But he taught Constitutional Law, a core law school class, for many years. I should think that a decade of Con Law entitles one to be called “Professor.” Third, Obama did not directly claim the title of “Professor.” The Top 10 list quotes him as saying “I was a constitutional law professor” (emphasis added). That is true, in the sense that one of his students at the time would have said, “My Con Law professor is Obama.” Were Obama attempting to delude people into thinking he was a full-fledged Professor of Law, he would have used the present tense. Using the past tense implies that he was the Professor for particular Con Law classes, not that Professor was his occupation and official title.

Although this is a minor issue, Obama’s campaign seems somewhat cognizant of it, as his website mentions his teaching only once, and is careful to say only that “he returned to Chicago to practice as a civil rights lawyer and teach constitutional law.” The word “Professor” is not mentioned. In the end, this is a rather silly thing for Republicans to attack. If this is really the best they can do, and if they truly feel the need to lash out this early, it is likely a very good sign for the Obama campaign.

One more thing: I’m in no way belittling the hard-work of Professors of Law who dedicate their entire lives to teaching. I understand being full-time staff is different than part-time, but it still doesn’t change my opinion about Obama saying he was a law professor.

Note to Self: The Bar Discourages Erotic Dancing

A Brooklyn Law student is taking some heat for starring in a Playboy TV series. A link to the ARTICLE is here. While I have declined to post a link to the VIDEO (click on dead blog roll links below to find similar interests) it is pretty interesting to see the reactions. Anywhere from students calling the behavior “trashy” to the New York Bar showing hints that she may be denied based on her “naughty past.”

How does everyone feel? I personally think this would have been an entertaining example for the ethics talk that is put on every fall for incoming 1L’s. Needless to say, I as a client would have a hard time taking my lawyer seriously if I could stroll down to the local adult store and rent “Naked Happy Girls” to get a pre-screening of my legal representations’ attributes.

The one person that does not seem worried is the student herself.

"I'm not that shy, so it wouldn't bother me if, say, the opposing counsel has seen these pictures of me. I wouldn't care."

Not So Trivial Pursuit

Were you just admitted to Boalt? Have you been preparing all your life to go to law school? Well this thread isn't for you then. This is thread is for all the hapless admits who really have no clue what Boalt and law school in general is about. This is where you ask, and Boalt's current students answer. I will periodically move this up, so don't despair.

UPDATE: Moving up in light of Admit Day coming up this Friday.

All Through My Coffee Break Time

Joke of the Day:

"And I prayed for peace." -- Pres. G. W. Bush

Sunday Literary-ism

Today’s literary-ism addresses the law from the perspective of the sovereign. In Tennyson’s vision, an elderly Ulysses has long since returned from his travels and grown bored with the workaday life of an island ruler:

It little profits that an idle king,
By this still hearth, among these barren crags,
Match'd with an aged wife, I mete and dole
Unequal laws unto a savage race,
That hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me.

So, Ulysses decides to leave once again. (Some people think this is a metaphor for his approaching death.) Fortunately, there is someone he can leave behind to keep a (more lawyerly?) eye on things:

This is my son, mine own Telemachus,
To whom I leave the sceptre and the isle —
Well-loved of me, discerning to fulfil
This labour, by slow prudence to make mild
A rugged people, and through soft degrees
Subdue them to the useful and the good.
Most blameless is he, centred in the sphere
Of common duties, decent not to fail
In offices of tenderness, and pay
Meet adoration to my household gods,
When I am gone. He works his work, I mine.

After reminding us about some of his great adventures in his earlier life, Ulysses sets off, with some inspiring words for old and young alike:

Tho' much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

Read the whole poem. This chopped-up version doesn’t do it justice. Read it aloud.

But How Will I Read Op/Eds in Class?

Prof. David Cole (Law, Georgetown) has this op/ed in today's WaPo on why he's banned laptops in his class. (Hattip: Ryan Howard Bashman). Needless to say, I disagree with almost every point he makes.

A crossword hidden under a book is one thing. With the aid of Microsoft and Google, we have effectively put at every seat a library of magazines, a television and the opportunity for real-time side conversations and invited our students to check out whenever they find their attention wandering.

I confess, I actually sometimes cheat on the Daily Cal crossword puzzle by looking up clues. But on some days, there's no way to finish it without the help of Microsoft and Google.

More seriously, the idea of taking away laptops or wireless is nothing new (as an aside, we were just getting wireless when UT was taking theirs away). But it is stupid. The entire legal education is designed to FEIGN interest. Our grades depend on a single exam at the end of the semester that tests a fraction of the material covered in class (even if the exam raises all the issues discussed in class, no student can cover them all in 4 hours). The Socratic method is a joke. I've always taken offense at the use of the term for law schools. It's not the Socratic method, it's just a game of guess what I'm thinking, or sometimes even a game of let's see if you read the blip cases. Anonymous grading. No motivation to do well past the first year (for the most part). And the glut of commercial materials designed specifically for those who wish NOT to pay attention.

Prohibiting laptops or wireless simply encourages happy go lucky class discussions where people are marginally more engaged. Whoop-dee-doo. Let's see how much of that students retain 5 minutes after the final. Conversly, I actually took notes on my laptop while in undergrad. There weren't many of us who did that back then, but I was one of them. Recently, my notes for Psych Research Methods saved my life when it came to an issue on my writing requirement. Whatever class Prof. Cole teaches will be forever lost to those students. Unless of course they are anal and save their notes. I'd like to see a survey of his students about that...next semester.

Is CO2 Bad For You?

Those who experienced the joy of Judge F’s final exam in Federal Courts last Fall were doubtless familiar with one of the questions answered by the Supreme Court in Mass. v. EPA this week: do the states have standing to sue the EPA to compel it to regulate greenhouse gasses?

My answer is no. The allegations of injury are too attenuated (insufficient evidence that Mass. will be underwater if new cars don’t become more fuel efficient). Causation is lacking, because increased greenhouse emissions due to inefficient new U.S. automobiles are but one minor factor in the world’s increasing CO2 footprint. Finally, even if stop CO2 emissions today, this has not been shown to redress the injury that might be caused by rising sea levels, especially given increases we can expect from non-Kyoto countries alone (China/India). It will certainly mean there is less CO2 out there, but that’s no guarantee that global warming will be redressed. Thus, there is no justiciable case or controversy, and Article III standing is lacking.

The Chief Justice apparently finds my reasoning persuasive, but the majority, alas, does not.

It should also be noted that the majority’s discovery in the century-old Tennessee Copper case of an exception for the Article III standing requirements for states as quasi-sovereigns is garbage. The “parens patriae” doctrine concerns whether the state many act on behalf of its citizens, who have a concrete injury (and thus standing), or whether the state itself has prudential standing to sue for a concrete injury to its own interests. Astoundingly, the majority relies on the Hart & Wechsler casebook as evidence for this sleeper Article III exception, which the Chief Justice notes is a misreading. I too re-read those passages and am calling BS.

Here’s my beef: I think we need to do something about greenhouse gasses, but the Judiciary is wrong to jump in. We all can agree about the problem of global warming, but what to do about it (and how soon) is inherently a political question for the EPA. It calls for difficult political balances and bargaining with foreign powers beyond SCOTUS’s reach. And if the Executive is dragging its heals or misconstruing Congress’s will, well then, the Legislature can spur the Executive to walk the line with the power of the purse. In short, this is a political problem and should be solved politically & electorally, not judicially.

Aside from standing, perhaps the worst legacy of this decision will be its meaninglessness. EPA will doubtless present some science about CO2 from new cars and find a reason to justify its judgment that it should continue doing little to nothing and avoid future judicial review. The Court has politicized itself yet again, harmed federalism, and done nothing to affect global warming.

One Less HP in the Bay Area

I just saw the e-mail regarding HP's departure. I am bummed. The only bad thing I've ever had to say about her is that she scooped me on the graduation speaker thing. She's always really been there for the students. I mean honestly that office was the one area of student services that was working, and working well. Ladarre's departure didn't really help things at the registrar's office, let's just hope HP's departure doesn't hurt things in the student services department.

You will be missed. Consider this my Hallmark e-card to you.

In re Two Hot Shots Visiting Boalt

Over time, I've become more interested in faculty positions, how they shape legal scholarship, etc. (see prior post on tenured faculty activity [part II is coming, just slowly]). I excitedly opened my email today to see who were the visiting "hot shots" that the student committee was pitching.

Sadly, I didn't get as worked up as the committee.

Ms. K. appears very bright and has published four articles so far. My disappointment stems purely from perspective, not from merits. One policy comment in the YLJ laments the "queer brinksmanship" of the Solomon Amendment and its "serious" constitutional flaws (unanimously rejected, Rumsfeld v. FAIR). Her research in IP is deeply entwined with UAEM, Benkler et al. Obviously, perspectives differ on these positions, esp. given Boalt's dedicated and active UAEM branch. It is not, however, where my sympathies lie. Students come to Boalt's technology program (in my opinion) to go work for technology companies and make innovation happen. While the "human rights" side of IP is interesting, it's not the primary mission. I also found this quote interesting, primarily for the verb "complicate":

If we complicate our understanding of what the Solomon Amendment is, and what it would mean to comply with or resist it, we can begin to ask questions such as these [the question above was about the painful consrequences of resisiting forced association, like losing donor and federal money]. Answers may be hard to come by, but there is no better time; or place; to begin to ask them.

Mr. McK. has some interesting interests, but he's published one article (in 2000). It's a neat article that deals with sovereign immunitiy & bankruptcy prior to the Court's handling of that issue (SOC created a bankruptcy exception to SSI), but there's nothing else on Hein Online since then. It turns out he's been toiling at Debevoise since then, so that might explain where the articles disappeared to.

One thing that strikes me is the shared trajectory of the candidates: big-deal east coast law school (YLS; NYU), 2d Circ. clerkship, S. Ct. clerkship. Maybe there's only one recipe for law school professor. I'm just more excited about the upcoming Mr. G. (CA5, DoJ, Jenner, then a statistics Ph.D.). Otherwise, I'm happy for Ms. K & Mr. McK's multiple faculty offers and wish them well wherever they end up, I just hope Boalt focuses its recruiting powers on different candidates.

Wear Sunscreen--Or, bitch about the sunscreen provided by your school because it is only SPF 15

The previous thread, on the graduation speaker, is probably the most vitriolic thread I have seen on N&B. As several commenters have pointed out, the speaker is set, and so there is little point in arguing about the merits of the speaker at this juncture. (For what it’s worth, I see no reason to expect anything other than a great speech, though I will form my final opinion AFTER I hear him speak. I'm sure he'll be great, but even if he sucks, it’s just not going to ruin my graduation day, you know?) Hopefully the previous thread gave everyone some catharsis, and now we can get back to being one big, happy family.

So let’s make some lemonade out of that thread’s lemons. Amidst all the sniping there were actually several good ideas for improving the process of selecting a graduation speaker. The following are my suggestions for improving this process, but please add on your thoughts in the comments. Also, I was not on the Graduation Committee, so if I mention anything that either was already tried or is absolutely impossible, please say so.

1) Timing: The 2008 Graduation Committee should form before the end of this school year. A preliminary list of speakers should be drawn up now. The Committee should also speak with the outgoing Committee, to get an idea of who 2007 spoke with, and who might have been interested. Send an email to the entire 2008 class this semester, asking for suggestions or potential connections. As soon as school resumes in the Fall, send an email asking again for any connections or suggestions. Make your first round of invites no later than Sept. 15^th (if not significantly earlier).

2) Faculty Input: It sounds like the faculty was of little help on this. First, get at least two established faculty members on the Committee. Second, have connected faculty members send out letters/make phone calls in September (or earlier). Faculty members like DE, Big Willie Style, and Prof. Choper are incredibly well-connected—they alone ought to be able to bring someone great in!

3) Money: Boalt does not provide an honorarium and can only offer coach airfare and crappy hotel accommodations. How can we make the experience better for the speaker? The honorarium policy likely won’t change, and first/business airfare is upwards of $1500 from New York or Washington, so unfortunately they likely do not provide our answer.

I think we can improve the experience, though, by having the speaker stay at the Claremont, and by providing a very nice complimentary dinner, or even a massage. The Claremont costs about $150 more than the Hotel Durant per night, and a good dinner will easily run over $100 for two people (we’ll let him/her bring a friend). Spa treatment is similarly expensive. Where will this money come from?

Armen points out that the Graduation Committee simply didn’t have the funds for these types of improvements. I think with a little bit of creativity, however, the Committee can raise additional funds. Other departments at Boalt do have the cash. What if BCLT agreed to have an event without lunch, with the lunch money instead going toward graduation? Could BCLT (or another well-funded organization) be convinced to make a donation? Or, why not form a student group dedicated to Boalt’s graduation that is eligible for GA funding? An eligible group can quite easily get several hundred dollars. And what about firm sponsors? Surely none of us would mind a firm’s name on the back of the program, if it helped to secure a graduation speaker. Heck, what about a 3L bake sale? Works for a lot of the student groups on campus.

Okay, I don’t know which of those ideas are feasible, but the point is that the money is out there, if we’re willing to find ways to get it.

4) Politics: Apparently the Committee’s first task each year is to eliminate just about any speaker who might be interesting, because the Left won’t cross picket lines and the Right won’t be warmly received by Boalt students. This is bullshit. Maybe it makes sense to stay away from politicians seeking office, but there are plenty of government officials, lawyers, etc. who are not overtly political. And I simply disagree that anyone on the Right is disqualified—I think Boalties are smarter than that, see, e.g., the warm reception Bob Barr received when he spoke here recently—or that the Union will always protest anyone on the Left (as pointed out by commenters in the previous thread). Also, judges are inherently non-political (usually), and are of course interesting to law students. And, don’t be afraid to think outside the box a bit—speakers who are culturally and/or socially relevant are just as interesting as those who are legally relevant.

5) Students: Involve students by sending quarterly updates, and reminding them that suggestions/connections are welcome. If nothing else, this will allow the Committee to manage expectations, and should limit complaining once the speaker is set.

6) Award: Give an award. Just make one up. Call it the Earl Warren Award for Excellence, or the Dean Prosser Award for Distinction, or the 1st Annual Montgomery Burns Award For Outstanding Achievement In The Field Of Excellence. Give him/her a snazzy-looking plaque. We may not have an honorarium, or hand out degrees, but at least we can make the speaker feel special.

Well that’s all I got for now. Feel free to add on to the list, or tell me why my list is stupid. Do with it what you will, 2008.

Of Our Elaborate Plans, the End

Consider this the token graduation post. But this is not what you'd expect. This is a praise of all those involved. Just from the occasional comments that have been popping up, I know that there will be plenty of 3Ls who are unhappy about it all. For example, in response to this post last year by Max Power, graduation is now an hour earlier to avoid the heat. Naturally, I already know people don't want to wake up early.

In a similary vein, those who are complaining about El Presidente clearly have no idea how hard he's been working on this. Not only is it rude to a fellow classmate, it's just outright DBaggery to bitch and moan without offering a helping hand. Somewhere JFK is rolling over in his grave.

Cutting to the chase:

Faculty Speaker: Stephen McG. Bundy
Graduation Speaker: Bryan Stevenson

Personal Thoughts: At least it's not Danny Glover. More seriously, Prof. Stevenson is a rockstar in the legal world and apparently he's a prolific speaker (a quick google search revealed quite a few speeches he's delivered). Not to take anything away from Prof. Stevenson, being at Boalt does not help us with the selection of a graduation speaker. First, you can cross off any Dem politician off the list. Just forget it. No one will cross a picket line. Second, if you think Boalties are pissed off about being up at 7:30 for graduation, imagine if they had to wake up at 7:30 for graduation to hear Arnie. Uh hum. So that rules out the other side of the aisle. As far as non-politicals go, well, we don't pay an honorarium and we don't offer an honorary degree. Good luck getting Bill Cosby to speak. Any guesses on how much SCOTUS justices make during the commencement cycle?

Also, this is (incredibly shockingly) the first time that Prof. Bundy has been selected as the faculty speaker. I can't wait for the 1940s Bogart reference. Lastly, thanks to all the people working behind the scenes. DO, HP, PP, JC, etc. SOME of us appreciate the hard work. I'm striking HP off the list b/c her e-mail beat this post by a few minutes in breaking the news. Damn you for scooping me HP.

...Or, Assuredly, We Shall All Hang Separately

The WSJ Law Blog is reporting that a group of law students calling itself Law Students Building a Better Legal Profession has sent an open letter to BigLaw firms asking them to commit to four principles bearing on work-life balance. The letter is here. The organization’s website is here.

The principles are:

1. Making concrete steps towards a transactional billing system
2. Reducing maximum billable hour expectations for partnership
3. Implementing balanced hours policies that work
4. Making work expectations clear

I’m curious about people’s thoughts on this. According to their letter, some of the participating students are from Boalt. If you’re reading this, can you fill us in?

I do have some initial reactions of my own.

First, as some of my previous posts have reflected, I’m a little bit of a skeptic about the billable hours end-of-the-world-ism that we hear so much of. Interesting that neither of the two main student organizers of this push is on their way (at least not immediately) to a firm job.

Second, even if we take for granted that work expectations at big firms stand in need of remediation, what should we make of these students’ approach? At first blush, it seems like students at prestigious law schools are an obvious constituency to push for reform, since firms are trying to recruit from our demographic. However, there are real problems with law students as a constituency for any kind of serious advocacy. One is that we don’t really know what we’re talking about, because we haven’t been in that world yet. The other is that we’re such a transient population.

Because we are only law students for a short period, we have little institutional memory and little capacity to exert sustained pressure. This is a problem for any student population, but especially acute in law school, since the window is so narrow: we’re usually pretty pre-occupied for at least the first part of the first year, and most of us have committed to a firm by the middle of our first semester of the third year, at which point both our leverage and our sense of membership in the relevant population diminish.

This transience is also what makes us vulnerable, in my opinion, to outrageous prices for thinks like graduation regalia, textbooks, bar-review courses, LSAT prep materials, and so forth. I also happen to think it’s part of what makes us unsuited to edit professional journals.

What do you think?

The Undiscovered Country

This week’s Sunday literary-ism is a little late. Also, it’s not in the public domain, so I don’t have any of those elegantly-formatted quotations everyone has been clamoring for.

John Knowles’ novel _A Separate Peace_ takes place at a boarding school on the eve of World War II. Two metaphors rivers run through the campus, one freshwater and the other brackish. The latter feeds into the ocean; the narrator describes it as being influenced by “unimaginably distant forces” like tides and ocean currents. They stand for the contrast between the protected life at a sequestered prep school and the uncertainty of young adulthood in a time of war. A lot of the book is about the strange feeling of being suspended between two worlds—one familiar (the present) and one alien (the near future).

The J&G fiasco as well as the Mayer, Brown layoffs have led me to realize that as a graduating law student I really am setting off into a world controlled by forces I don’t understand very well. Partners can get laid off? I didn’t know that. Law firms can stop existing just because a few people in one office were cheating? Oh.

Call Me Agamemnon

A U$C legal historian has this spoof (if you can call it that) study by our own Eric Tall*y that concludes history is not efficient. It's meant to be a jab at the former cornerstone of U$C's law and econ program (Tall*y). The whole thing is a bit ironic, if not tragic, considering the money grubbing greaseballs who attend U$C. (To the $C alumni who read this, hope you understand, it's not personal).