Dubyanell Feds

Individual Right to Bear Arms

2008-06-26T10:44:00.002-05:00

A victory for the Second Amendment today as the Supreme Court (5-4) confirms an individual right to bear arms for self-defense. The court struck down DC's complete handgun ban and DC's requirement that all other weapons remain disassembled. The court did not decide a particular standard of review for evaluating laws under this right, but did rule out rational basis review.

Opinion here

The Kozinski Kerfuffle

2008-06-20T16:27:00.005-05:00

Note: opinions contained herein are representative only of the author and not of W&L Fed Soc as a whole. The aforementioned author makes no pretense of impartiality.

For those who have been living under a rock, honeymooning, or studying for the bar in the past week: the LA Times reported that Chief Judge Kozinski was running a porn website. Worse yet, he was running a porn website... while presiding over a high-profile obscenity trial. (Appellate judges will occasionally cover trials; Judge Kozinksi once said that he takes them at least once a year so that his clerks will see trials as well as appellate practise.) According to the LA Times, one of the files contained a video of a man "cavorting" in a field with an obviously aroused donkey; others contained paedophilia and content of a sexual nature.

In light of the controversy, Judge Kozinski recused himself from the trial and called for an investigation into himself. As he is the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, he requested that another circuit conduct the investigation; Chief Justice Roberts assigned five judges from the Third Circuit to fulfill this duty.

At least that's what the LA Times - and every newspaper and media outlet that has since picked up this story - has said. Ultimately, the porn was not porn; the website was not a website; and the person who broke into the Kozinski's server and then leaked the contents to the LA Times is a litigant with a long-standing grudge against the jurist.

In 2005, Cyrus Sanai - a California attorney with a pending motion for en banc review of the Ninth Circuit's refusal to intervene in the state proceedings of his parents' divorce case - penned an article (in the Recorder, a SF newspaper) about the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, entitled, "Taking The Kozinski Challenge." Judge Kozinski was not one of the judges who had originally decided his case, but had Sanai's motion for en banc review on his desk. Problematically, Sanai's article did not mention his affiliation with pending litigation, but contained this as its last line:

Granting en banc review of the next unpublished decision which raises the three-way Rooker-Feldman conflict would be a good start.

Kozinski's response (here)
discussed the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The judge also stated that Sanai was not an unbiased observer of an archaic area of jurisprudence:

A petition for en banc rehearing raising this very issue crossed my desk just as Mr. Sanai's article appeared in print. The name of the case? Sanai v. Sanai. A mere coincidence of names? Not hardly. The petition, signed by Mr. Sanai, cites the same cases and makes the same arguments as his article -- including the reference to "Catch-22."

Judge Kozinski then discussed Sanai's perpetual turmoil with the judiciary. He quoted a district judge's decision which described Sanai's actions as "an indescribable abuse of the legal process, ... the most abusive and obstructive litigation tactics this court has ever encountered." Judge Kozinski linked to a pdf stored on his family's server (which could, before this mess, be accessed remotely at alex.kozinski.com), that described how Sanai had forced a state court judge off of his family's divorce case.

In response, Sanai made a motion to have Judge Kozinski investigated for a breach of judicial ethics (specifically, for commenting on a case before him). Judge Kozinski apologised; the investigative panel (at that time, Judge Mary Schroeder was the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit) found no wrongoing.

Sanai then spent months looking into the Kozinski's web server. The "site" contains no internal structure to guide a user through it; unlike, say, this blog, it does not have a tool bar for navigation, archives, or a directory structure. The vast majority of the server is not indexed on search engines (the judge's writings, however, could be found there). Sanai, during his travels, happened across the now-infamous "stuff" folder, which contains, inter alia, sexual humour. This was in December. The attorney, or the LA Times (it is unclear which) waited until Judge Kozinski had empaneled a jury and begun to preside over an obscenity trial before breaking the story, which ensured that it would do maximum damage to his reputation - and be more newsworthy.

Sanai has admitted that this is all part of his "litigation strategy."

Judge Kozinki's wife, Marcy J.K. Tiffany, penned the a letter to Patterico's Pontifications. Her beautiful letter (please read it - it's worth it!) explained the nature of the family's server, the uses to which they put it, the role of Cyrus Sanai, and the nature of the alleged "porn." Ms. Tiffany stated:

One especially egregious misrepresentation is that there was a “video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal.” In subsequent articles, including one in the S.F. Chronicle, this has been described as a “bestiality” video. In fact, as you reveal on your Blog, it is a widely available video of a man trying to relieve himself a field when he is attacked by a donkey he fights off with one hand while trying to hold up his pants with the other. I would note that there is a version of this video on YouTube that apparently aired on the Fox channel. Crude and juvenile, for sure, but not by any stretch of the imagination is it bestiality. The fact is, Alex is not into porn - he is into funny – and sometimes funny has a sexual character.

For another good read, Stephen Gianelli's response to the LA Times is here.

Now, for my own thoughts:

Judge Kozinski is just that - a federal judge. While we ought to hold judges to a higher standard than other people, such standard-making belongs in confirmation hearings, not as "litigation strategy." Senators, who presumably do not have business before the court upon which an appointee will sit, may make an unbiased and thorough examination of the appointee's character, ability to judge without partiality, and fitness for the bench. Once confirmed, however, such oversight from the government would border on tyranny. We would, appropriately, be afraid of government officials who would smear the reputation of jurists with whom they disagree. Such actions would castrate the third branch of government, which would be unable to function as a check on the power of the other two branches.

Such intrusion is only slightly less frightening when it comes from the private sector. Any litigant who may disgrace a judge who rules against him has the power to undermine the foundations of the judiciary - both in perception and in function. A judiciary ensures that we are not the ruled subjects of our government, nor of our fellow man - a role that requires that the third branch function independently from both from the government and potential legal adversaries. Our system ensures that dissatisfied litigants may appeal their decisions, petition Congress or their states for a change in the law, or, with the support of their fellow citizens, amend the Constitution. What a litigant cannot do is to harass and smear judges until a favourable result is achieved. Such is the antithesis of justice.

Even if there were pornographic items on Judge Kozinski's home computer, that would not render him unfit to do his job. This is not some insight into his soul that would indicate a lack of fitness for the bench: that fitness has been conclusively demonstrated for decades. This blogger was in kindergarten when he was appointed to the Ninth Circuit; undoubtedly, some of Dubyanell's readers were not yet born when that happened. In the intervening years, Judge Kozinski has established himself as one of the nation's leading jurists, known for his brilliant opinions and commitment to freedom. It is ridiculous to attempt to determine, by proxy, his ability to do his job when he has been doing it - and doing so superlatively - for almost a quarter century.

In the past week, Judge Kozinski's character has been questioned, challenged, and attacked. He has been branded a porn-loving misogynist. In my personal experience with him, Judge Kozinski is anything but a misogynist; rather, he is one of those rare men who enjoys the company of women. He certainly does not need to spend time with law students, but he has given me (and, by all accounts, many others) a tremendous amount of support and advice. Undoubtedly, most American men would prefer to watch pantless men fend off amourous donkeys, rather than volunteer for the role of friend and advisor to multitudes of law students; Judge Kozinski is not one of those men. His jurisprudence is not an accident of his character; he can - and ought to be - defended against these attacks upon both grounds.

Cal Supreme Court Strikes Down SanFran Hand-gun Ban

2008-04-11T09:02:00.001-05:00

Not addressing Second Amendment concerns, a panel said the handgun ban is outside the municipality's scope of authority.

Senate Holds Judiciary Hostage & Refuses to Consider Bush's Nominees

2008-03-31T19:57:00.008-05:00

From Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Republican, who has served on the Senate Judiciary Committee since 1977 and chaired the committee during the 104th-106th and the 108th Congresses:

[I]t does not take a partisan standard to see that that neither the Judiciary Committee nor the full Senate is doing its judicial-confirmation duty..

Democratic leaders are fond of saying that they will not treat President Bush’s nominees as the Republicans treated President Clinton’s nominees. Indeed, they are not. In the last ten months, for example, the Judiciary Committee has held a hearing on just three appeals-court nominees. During the same period under President Clinton, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on 11 nominees..

The picture is the same when we look past the Judiciary Committee to the Senate floor. Under Presidents Clinton, Bush 41, and Reagan, the opposition-controlled Senate confirmed an average of 75 district-court and 17 appeals-court nominees during the president’s final two years in office. So far in the 110th Congress, we have confirmed 31 district-court and just six appeals-court nominees for President Bush. Simply meeting the historical average will require confirming 44 district-court and nine appeals-court nominees in the next several months. If anyone believes that will happen, I have some ocean-front property in Utah’s desert I would like to sell him..

Supreme Court: States Not Bound by Vienna Convention

2008-03-28T01:27:00.000-05:00

Details here.

Ninth Circuit Upholds 10 Commandments on Public Land

2008-03-28T01:00:00.001-05:00

Details here.

Under Fire

2008-02-15T03:02:00.005-05:00

Please join us on Monday, 18 February, at noon, in Classroom A, for a presentation by Clark Neily of the Institute for Justice. Mr. Neily will be speaking on, "Under Fire: The Second Amendment and What it Means Today."

Mr. Neily was co-counsel in D.C. v. Heller, which successfully challenged Washington's complete ban on handguns. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller on 18 March 2008, to decide the following question:

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

As always, lunch will be provided.

The Inherent Federalism of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments

2008-02-03T21:48:00.000-05:00

Come join us on Monday (if you're reading this!) in Classroom A, at noon, for Prof. Kurt Lash's historical analysis of the Ninth Amendment: The Inherent Federalism of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. I swear, it's a great topic - and not just for law nerds.

Our very own

2008-02-03T21:23:00.000-05:00

Bridget Fay has another awesome blog at http://helvidiuspachyderm.wordpress.com/. Those "in the know" (and now you're all in the know) just might want to make a habit of reading it; it includes a rather stunning photo: http://helvidiuspachyderm.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/golden-capitol-at-the-end-of-the-rainbow/ which is making her a little bit famous;-)

Evil

2008-02-01T18:41:00.000-05:00

In the midst of debating the supposed horrors of waterboarding terrorists and the need for removing artificial constraints from our intelligence services, this is a terrible, but useful, reminder. This is who our enemies are. This is what they do. They would do it, and worse, right here, if we gave them half a chance.

And meaning no offense to Federalists of non-Christian persuasion or of no persuasion at all: the shortest, and, according to some, the most powerful verse in the King James Bible consists of only two words: "Jesus wept."

And in the meantime...

2008-01-31T18:32:00.000-05:00

While our chattering classes, and their lawyers, continue to agonize over the "rights" of beheaders, these scientists are working in obscurity to protect America with a missile shield.
Which will come in very handy when the beheaders' cousins in Iran complete their nuclear program. Which is, of course, entirely peaceful. (Thank you, Ben Bova - good journalist, and a *great* writer of hard sci-fi)

FISA

2008-01-31T18:09:00.000-05:00

And since we don't waterboard people anymore, we might at least have effective intelligence gathering. Another one of Andy McCarthy's excellent articles is here (he's a former federal prosecutor and a current Foundation for the Defense of Democracies fellow who generally makes tons of sense).

Waterboarding, we hardly knew ya

2008-01-31T17:56:00.000-05:00

On a more serious note, here's a great article by Andy McCarthy (courtesy of National Review Online) on what should be - but probably won't be - the end of the"torture" controversy.

Personally, any qualms I had about the use of what NKVD used to call "French wrestling" against Al-Quaida operatives magically evaporated after watching the last moments of Danny Pearl's life... but I'm sure that's just another example of my outdated, "us vs. them" mentality...

Of course, I meant "debates"...

2008-01-31T17:35:00.000-05:00

...not "debats." Debat was Batman's nickname in certain parts of Gotham, until its use was outlawed by the hate speech policy.

This seems somehow appropriate...

2008-01-31T17:27:00.000-05:00

... with all our recent debats and whatnot. I especially like the bit about "the Vicar of Christ and Doctor W." Oh, and the old "Earth-is-a-nuclear-bomb" idea...

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2008cv0095-3

Upcoming Events!

2008-01-16T01:04:00.000-05:00

On 22 January, at noon (location TBA), David Barton will be speaking on original intent and religion in the time of the Founding era. His speech is entitled, "Who Built the Wall Between Church and State?"

On 24 January, we will be having our kick-off spring semester meeting. Find out how to get involved, run for an office in the 2008-2009 school year, and join us on our trip to the Annual Student Symposium, to be held at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, on 07-08 March. After the brief meeting, we will be heading out to the Southern Inn for Feds on Tap.

Kurt Lash from Loyola Law School (L.A.) will be speaking on the subject of the inherent federalism of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Contrary to the meaning given to them by the Supreme Court, which speaks of the former as a guarantee of various rights (abortion, substantive due process, welfare) and the latter as a mere tautology, the Amendments should be interpreted as giving power and rights to the states and to the people therein.

In February, we may be hosting an ATF night: alcohol, tobacco, and firearms... just not in that order. :)

Going strong...

2007-10-04T20:51:00.000-05:00

Nice to see that the blog is back in use after all this time...and a new chapter website too!
I hope to meet a bunch of you at the convention next month.

Kevin Hasson of the Becket Fund to Speak on Monday

2007-09-23T20:38:00.000-05:00

On Monday, 22 September, Kevin "Seamus" Hasson will deliver a speech entitled: "The Right to be Wrong: Ending the Culture War over Religion in America." He is the founder and current president of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. Robin Fretwell Wilson will introduce Mr. Hasson.

US Commission on Civil Rights: Affirmative Action Does More Harm Than Good

2007-09-08T19:52:00.001-05:00

From the NY Post:

THE U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which turns 50 this week, remains an important vehicle for public debate on civil-rights issues - as evidenced by its controversial new report questioning whether affirmative action may actually do more harm than good to its intended beneficiaries.

The report, "Affirmative Action in American Law Schools," found that admitting minority students "into law schools for which they might not academically be prepared could harm their academic performance and hinder their ability to obtain secure and gainful employment."

The arguments about the unintended consequences of affirmative action aren't new. What is new is a growing body of empirical evidence to back up the claim that affirmative action in higher education harms not only whites and Asians but also blacks and Hispanics.

But this body of evidence may never see light - which is why the report is so important. The commission has no civil-rights-enforcement authority, but it has always served as the nation's conscience on civil rights, making findings and recommendations to the president and Congress. Its recommendation is to end the conspiracy of secrecy surrounding the effects of affirmative action on the performance of black students in law schools.

The first solid evidence that affirmative action was harming black law-school students came in 2004, when UCLA law prof Richard Sander published a study that showed that more than half of black students at elite law schools had first-year grades that put them in the bottom 10 percent of their classes. This led to a far greater chance that the students wouldn't finish law school and made them six times more likely never to pass the bar exam.

But Sander also found that black students did far better if they attended law schools with students whose undergraduate grades and law-school-admission-test scores were similar to theirs. Black students who didn't rely on affirmative action to get into law school had similar first-year grades with their white counterparts and passed the bar at similar rates as all students from the same tier law school.

The affirmative-action establishment denounced Sander's study. More perniciously, it conspired to deny access to a body of evidence, a 25-year archive of California state-bar results, that could definitively prove Sander's thesis that mismatching black students with law schools where they were less likely to succeed resulted in fewer black lawyers than there would be without affirmative action.

Institute of Justice's Neily to Speak on February 18 about Second Amendment

2007-09-05T17:51:00.001-05:00

Clark Neily, the lead attorney in Parker v. D.C. (successfully challenging D.C.'s gun laws), 478 F.3d 370, will speak on Monday, February 18 at noon in Classroom A about the Second Amendment. As always, food will be provided.

First Meeting & "Feds on Tap" on Thursday, September 13

2007-09-05T17:44:00.000-05:00

We will have our first meeting on Thursday, September 13 at 7 P.M. in Classroom A. As always, food will be provided. This meeting will be followed up at the Southern Inn by our first "Feds on Tap: Because No Debate on Judicial Construction Should Begin Without a Toast."

Becket's Hasson to Speak September 24 on Religion in Society

2007-09-05T17:39:00.000-05:00

Kevin Seamus Hasson, Chairman & Founder of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, will speak at 2 P.M. on Monday, September 24 in Classroom A on the topic of his book, "The Right To Be Wrong: Ending the Culture War Over Religion in America. See Interview here. As always, food will be provided.

Unanimous Texas Supreme Court Affirms Seminaries' Religious Freedom

2007-09-01T14:01:00.000-05:00

Multiple Texas seminaries successfully challenged a state requirement that subjected each seminary's curriculum to government approval. A unanimous Texas Supreme Court (8-0) found that such restrictions "impermissibly intrudes upon religious freedom protected by the United States and Texas Constitutions."

Professor Calhoun Becomes Faculty Advisor

2007-09-01T10:25:00.000-05:00

I am proud to announce that Professor Samuel Calhoun will be the 2007-2008 Faculty Advisor of Washington & Lee University's Federalist Society. Considering his scholarship and passion for Federalist Society principles, primarily his focused opposition to Roe v. Wade, it will be an honor to work with him this year.

David Barton to Speak Jan 22 on Establishment Clause

2007-09-01T10:20:00.000-05:00

Historian David Barton from Wallbuilders will speak on January 22 at noon in Classroom A. Mr. Barton is a dynamic speaker who has extensively studied and researched original documents written by and about our nation's founder. As always, food will be provided.

Yes, the Second Amendment Guarantees an Individual Right to Bear Arms

2007-08-31T17:28:00.001-05:00

This article defends the individual right to bear arms.

Conditions Right for Stevens Retirement

2007-08-31T17:27:00.001-05:00

This post at AgapeRevolution.com explains that a Stevens retirement before Bush leaves office is a distinct possibility. The main reasons are rumors of poor health and desire to be replaced by a Republican. Some claim that Stevens, appointed by Ford, feels like he owes it to the party to let a Republican to replace him. He turns 88 next year, and may feel like retirement anyway. If he's replaced by Bush, that could shift the balance of the Court. This could lead to the overturning of Roe.

Studies Show Death Penalty Deters

2007-08-31T17:25:00.000-05:00

"[A] series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years ... count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer...

"There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect."

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. ... "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) - what am I going to do, hide them?" [he said].

... [S]tudies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory - if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy from murder).

... [T]hey look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more.

Among the conclusions:

- Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at three, five and 14).

- The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over four years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston.

- Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, one murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor.

... Some claim that the pro-deterrent studies made profound mistakes in their methodology, so their results are untrustworthy. Another critic argues that the studies wrongly count all homicides, rather than just those homicides where a conviction could bring the death penalty. And several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in the United States to make a judgment. ...

Several authors of the pro-deterrent reports said they welcome criticism in the interests of science, but said their work is being attacked by opponents of capital punishment for their findings, not their flaws.

ACLU Tries to Remove Jesus From Public Sector

2007-08-31T17:23:00.000-05:00

Gordon James Klingenschmitt, a former Navy chaplain who sacrificed his career to help change national policy, allowing military chaplains to publicly pray "in Jesus' name" – even in uniform, explains how the ACLU is attempting to remove Jesus from the public sector.

Anti-Jesus activists threatened lawsuits in Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio and New York this month to stop Christians from praying "in Jesus' name" or publicly expressing their faith.
In Iowa, activist lawyer Mikey Weinstein declared victory over the Veterans Administration, claiming the agency caved into his demands to remove Christian symbols from the chapel in the Iowa VA hospital, and also promised to ban Christians who sing hymns (such as "The Old Rugged Cross") in the common-use area. Sadly, the VA also appears eager to silence Christian chaplains, depriving veterans who want Christian ministry in their time of need.
In North Carolina, the American Civil Liberties Union threatened to sue the town of Clayton after Councilman Bob Satterfield bravely prayed "in Jesus' name" to open a public meeting. "I know who I pray to, and if other people want to pray to that chair over there, they're welcome to. It was my turn to do the invocation, and I did it the way I know how," Satterfield said.
But ACLU attorney Jennifer Rudinger fired back, threatening a lawsuit: "The law is pretty clear. The courts have ruled that it's legal to have an invocation at government functions, but it has to be non-sectarian."
Actually, the courts have mandated no such thing. In the 1983 Marsh v. Chambers case, the Supreme Court upheld 6-3 a chaplain's right to pray a "non-sectarian" prayer on the floor of any legislature, but stopped short of mandating all prayers be "non-sectarian."

Instead, the Supreme Court specifically forbid any government from censoring public prayers or requiring "non-sectarian" prayer content, ruling in 1991 in Lee v. Weisman: "The government may not establish an official or civic religion as a means of avoiding the establishment of a religion with more specific creeds. ... The State's role did not end with the decision to include a prayer and with the choice of clergyman. [They] provided a copy of the 'Guidelines for Civic Occasions' and advised him that his prayers should be non-sectarian. Through these means, [they] directed and controlled the content of the prayers. ... It is a cornerstone principle of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence that it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers."
Too bad the ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court, as the organization advocates establishing a illegal state religion, censoring free speech, enforcing religious conformity on everybody who prays in public, and demanding violators be excluded or punished with government sword.
In Ohio, more evidence of anti-Jesus intimidation came in the Legislature, when the chairman of the state Democratic Party, Rep. Chris Redfern, walked off the floor after hearing Rev. Keith Hamblen pray "in Jesus' name." The next day, the Ohio clerk issued new prayer guidelines requiring "non-sectarian" prayer content, and a 72-hour pre-authorization of each prayer offered.
"Prayers before the House should be nondenominational, nonsectarian and nonproselytizing," the guidelines say. Sadly, even the Republican-controlled Ohio statehouse now excludes Christians who pray "in Jesus' name." Will anybody in Ohio call his or her legislator at 1-800-282-0253, or contact them at this website?
Thank God not all legislators have caved in. This month in Greece, N.Y., the ACLU threatened a local town supervisor, demanding he enforce "non-sectarian" prayer content at board meetings and stop praying "in Jesus' name." But one government official bravely stood his ground and protected liberty.
John T. Auberger said, "It is the town's position that we are not advancing any religion or giving preference to any one faith over another. Accordingly, it is our intent to continue our current practice." So they protect free speech, even if somebody prays "in Jesus' name."
Scott Forsyth, an ACLU attorney, might sue. He said there's no issue with the board having a prayer, but rather with the content. "We are hoping the town will come in with some written policy on the subject that conforms to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings," he said.
Amen, brother! I also agree with the Supreme Court. But the ACLU is dead wrong, and deceives the public with half-truths. I therefore pray Iowa, Ohio, North Carolina and New York will soon issue prayer guidelines conforming to the 1991 Lee v. Weisman ruling, stating something like: "The government may not establish an official or civic religion. We cannot advise that prayers be non-sectarian, nor may we control the content of prayers. We therefore welcome diversity, allowing everyone to take turns praying according to their conscience, even if they pray 'in Jesus' name, Amen.'"

Fred on Eminent Domain

2007-08-31T17:22:00.000-05:00

Hat Tip to Fred:

Last week, California officials in National City voted unanimously to use eminent domain to take over more than 600 properties—including a nonprofit youth center dedicated to keeping local kids out of gangs and off the street. They plan to give this land to local private developers for a group of condominiums.

It’s said that a man’s home is his castle, but across America some property owners are being rooked by local bureaucrats and politicians and having their private property confiscated by local governments for the supposed public good.

Most people probably think that if they buy a home or a small business that they will get to keep what they purchased. After all, the Fifth Amendment guarantees that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

But in 2005, the Supreme Court, in Kelo v. New London, held that the government could take private property – even a person’s home – and give that property to a large private corporation for that business’s private use. As Justice O’Connor wrote in her scathing dissent, “Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded – i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public – in the process.”

Not surprisingly, the public responded to Kelo with outrage. Since then, numerous states passed legislation aimed at curbing an abuse of eminent domain powers. In the 2006 election cycle, 12 states held referendums proposing to limit state governments’ abilities to confiscate property a la Kelo. Ten states approved the proposals, each with strong majorities.

Now, nearly two weeks ago, members of both parties in Congress introduced legislation in the House that would deny federal economic funding to state and local governments upon a finding that those governments had abused their power of eminent domain by seizing private property that would be used for private economic development. This is an important issue, and Members of Congress need to act to make sure that federal funds are not used to enable these sorts of takings of private property. Another option would be the reissuance of President Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12630, which directs federal agencies to “first do no harm” to property rights when issuing new regulations.

Our Founders placed respect for private property as a key principle when writing our nation’s Constitution, and the protection of private property resulted in the United States becoming the greatest economic power in the world and a beacon of freedom to all. This principle is even more important today, as homeownership has become an increasingly integral part of our citizens’ aspirations for a better future for themselves and their loved ones. If the Supreme Court will not protect our right to ownership, then political leaders must step up to the challenge.

Valedictorian Forced to Apologize for Mentioning Jesus in Address

2007-08-31T17:21:00.000-05:00

Liberty Counsel press release:

Today, Liberty Counsel filed suit against Lewis Palmer School District on behalf of Erica Corder, a high school valedictorian who was forced to publicly apologize for sharing her Christian faith at graduation... During her 30-second message Erica spoke about her faith in Jesus Christ. Afterwards, she was escorted to see the assistant principal, who said she would not receive her diploma because of the speech she had given...

He said that she could only receive her diploma if she apologized to the school community. Erica prepared a statement saying the message was her own and was not endorsed by the principal. Brewer insisted that she include the words: "I realize that, had I asked ahead of time, I would not have been allowed to say what I did." Erica complied because she feared the school would withhold her diploma. She was also afraid that the school would put disciplinary notes in her file and would generate negative publicity, which could prevent her from becoming a school teacher. Principal Brewer sent out Erica's message in an e-mail to the entire high school community. Soon after, Erica received her diploma...

Mathew Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: "Valedictorians have the right to express their religious viewpoints while at the graduation podium. School officials have no right to threaten young graduates that their diplomas will be withheld. The school district's action in forcing Erica Corder to write an e-mail apologizing to the community for exercising her right to free speech is shocking."

Hat Tip: Cassy Fiano
Hat Tip 2: Stop the ACLU

Carrying Your Freedom of Religion Outside of Your Church

2007-08-31T17:16:00.000-05:00

Jon Sanders from the John Locke Foundation addresses a school's recent choice to discipline a girl for mentioning Jesus in her Valedictorian address (see my other post here):

The First Amendment protects individuals' rights of religion, speech, assembly, and petition. Religious freedom is the very first freedom it secures against government interference. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (sealing citizens against the fear of a State Church), "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

It should not escape anyone's notice that the Free Exercise clause is immediately followed by the prohibition against Congress (and by application, all government) "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." These all proceed in logical order. A free individual is free to believe, follow, and express his faith, and it follows that he is free to speak and publish as he pleases, meet with whom he pleases, and not be hindered even from airing grievances with the government.

No "Separation Clause" there; that phrase hails from Pres. Thomas Jefferson's January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association. Jefferson used the phrase "a wall of separation between Church & State" to describe what the First Amendment had accomplished, so that the Baptists need not fear state governments' declarations of days of prayer and fasting as abridging their religious rights. The First Amendment protects religious expression even by individuals in government, and even in public halls and government buildings – an idea Pres. Jefferson solidified by concluding his letter with a reference to "the common father and creator of man."

And this is true liberty – allowing all manner of religious expression. It is the cardinal opposite of the current teaching on the First Amendment as it pertains to schools and government; i.e., forbidding all manner of religious expression. That, of course, is tyranny.

Follow the coercion. If a teacher or administrator forces students, regardless of creed, to hew to his religious beliefs, then that would be an unconstitutional abridgment of their religious rights. If a teacher or administrator cited a personal belief in God -- or a personal disbelief in God -- without any response forced upon the students, then no First Amendment rights would have been violated. The former involves coercion, the latter doesn't.

Where was the coercion in Monument? Was it used against the audience hearing a student's declaration of belief in Jesus Christ and encouraging her listeners to join her? Were they prevented from leaving or forced to agree or pledge fealty? Or was it used against the student? Does the First Amendment protect government officials forcing a specific kind of speech – a specifically worded apology – from someone under their power?

Follow the coercion. That's where you can see the tyranny that our Founders sought to protect us against.

Ninth Circuit Upholds Schools Decision to Ban Christian Group

2007-08-31T17:14:00.000-05:00

From CitizenLink:

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against a Christian club that is seeking to start up at a Seattle high school.

Truth Bible Club has been trying to gain recognition since 2001, but has been blocked because of its Christian code of conduct.

Officials at Kentridge High School have called the club discriminatory because its name excludes other religions, and its bylaws require voting members to sign a statement espousing the Bible...

Nate Kellum, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), pointed out the school's double standard: other clubs are granted the freedom to associate with whomever they please — including the school's Gay Straight Alliance.

“It’s really incredible that these groups are allowed to identify themselves according to membership," he said, "but Truth is forced to compromise who they are — they are forced to compromise their message.”

Kellum added that ADF is prepared to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court if that’s what it takes for Truth Bible Club to gain recognition.

Chief Justice Roberts Suffered Seizure

2007-07-31T04:25:00.000-05:00

CNN reported that Chief Justice Roberts suffered a benign idiopathic seizure while vacationing in Maine. He suffered from another, similar, seizure in 1993. MRIs and other tests revealed that Justice Roberts is not suffering from a brain tumour or other abnormal condition which may trigger seizures. His doctors expect him to make a full recovery.

Jim Lindgren at Volokh asks if the Chief Justice has epilepsy; the liberal blogosphere is already showing its class (or lack thereof). After all, when the DailyKos starts criticising the Left's coverage, you know that lines have been crossed.

S. Ct. Ruling on Seattle Desegregation Case

2007-07-04T02:05:00.000-05:00

(The following is a re-post from my own blog):

The Supreme Court ruled that Seattle and Kentucky public schools cannot use race as a tie-breaking factor in placing students in districts. Seattle, which had never been segregated by state law, placed students in districts according to the student’s selection of school. The tie-breaking factors, in order, are:

students who have a sibling in the chosen school;
students whose race (white or non-white) would help put the chosen school within 10 percentage points of the district as a whole; and
student's geographic proximity to the chosen school.

Predicatably, the Court determined that this scheme violates the Equal Protection Clause. Seattle was never segregated by the government, so there is no compelling state interest in undoing prior harm. (As a logical matter, it is not the job of the government to reverse or ameliorate conditions that it was never responsible for in the first place.)

The Court did not look favourably upon the fact that the school districts only looked to race as a factor in diversity. The Grutter system (arguably, although not in fact) used other factors to examine “diversity,” of which race was but one. Seattle insisted on using race in a mechanical manner (i.e. without examination of the entire individual); and, when used, it is a decisive factor.

Segregation, Integration, and Brown: There has been a lot of criticism from left-leaning legal scholars who are upset that the Court cited Brown v. Board while holding that a desegregation plan is invalid. Before Brown v. Board was decided, the NAACP litigated many cases under the “separate but equal” standard of Plessy. Segregated schools did not merely bring a psychic injury to black children; they were noticeably inferiour to white schools. The NAACP used that as a basis for litigation for many years; eventually, it decided that a frontal attack on Plessy would be more efficient.

Brown was a shortcut to equal facilities (sorely lacking in the Jim Crow era) as well as an affirmation of black equality, not a mandate of quotas or diversity. The Seattle school district - and those who oppose the Parents Involved plurality opinion - bring forth no complaint about the core Brown issues of inferiour facilities or an imprimatur of inequality. There is no evidence that the schools in predominately black neighbourhoods are noticeably worse than those in predominantly white areas, nor is there any evidence that forced integration increases the self-worth of young black children.

Even if the schools in black neighbourhoods were worse, the correct response is one that addresses the relevant harm - i.e. improvement of the majority-minority schools so that all students can receive a quality education, regardless of residence. The incorrect solution (albeit the one chosen by the Seattle district) would be to shuffle students around so that educational inequality is doled out fairly to those of all races, although justly to none of the students forced to receive an education in sub-par schools.

Limiting Grutter to universities: The plurality opinion declined to overrule or even gut Grutter. Given that it was decided in 2003, there is little reason to defer to it under stare decisis principles. The Court chose to limit its reach to higher education (which, constitutionally, is nonsense: there is no asterisk or footnote in the Fourteenth Amendment which limits its scope to K-12 schools) and stated that its standards had not been met: the Parents Involved decision affirms the principles in Grutter.

Diversity: Chief Justice Roberts demonstrated that the definitions of “diversity” used do not encompass any rational notion of racial diversity, let alone diversity in other arenas.

The Seattle “Board Statement Reaffirming Diversity Rationale” speaks of the “inherent educational value” in “[p]roviding students the opportunity to attend schools with diverse student enrollment,” App. in No. 05–908, at 128a, 129a. But under the Seattle plan, a school with 50 percent Asian-American students and 50 percent white students but no African-American, Native-American, or Latino students would qualify as balanced, while a school with 30 percent Asian-American, 25 percent African-American, 25 percent Latino, and 20 percent white students would not. It is hard to understand how a plan that could allow these results can be viewed as being concerned with achieving enrollment that is “ ‘broadly diverse,’ ” Grutter, supra, at 329.

States may discriminate on the basis of race so long as such discrimination is “narrowly tailored to meet a compelling state interest.” Most Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence is focused either on the first clause (whether or not the relevant law is narrowly tailored to the need in question) or the second clause (state interest). Very little jurisprudence is focused on whether or not the relevant law actually, concretely, “meet[s]” the asserted interest. The Court often seems loathe to determine if a law has its intended effect or if its rationale is mere conjecture.

While many neighbourhoods can be delineated along racial lines, they are almost always segregated by income (and thereby by other family circumstances, such as parental education and marital status). Here, race is a decisive factor whenever employed, not one of many - even one that many trump the educational needs of students. Seattle does not express the desire to distribute students among schools based on race, religion, socio-economic status, or the marital status of their parents. As in the Jim Crow South, race is the sole factor in sorting students. Is this any less odious simply because the ends are different?

Critical Mass:Grutter was justified, in part, under the theory that affirmative action is needed to bring in a “critical mass” of minority students. There seems to be little agreement as to what percentage of students constitutes the critical mass in question.

Even if such a percentage could be determined with mathematical precision, there is no sane way to reach this critical mass if the relevant population would not provide enough students. For example, if the critical mass in question were 20% minority, many schools will automatically fall below this critical mass if only 5% of the eligible students are minorities. Would a scheme whereby 8% of the students are minorities instead of 5% be constitutionally valid, even if 8% is still short of the critical mass and denies enrollment to other qualified students?

De jure v. de facto segregation and the negative effects of affirmative action: C.J. Roberts did not address two factors in his decision: the social reasons for self-segregated housing and the harm brought to students, beyond the stigma of competing in a race-based system. Often, members of a minority group will feel more comfortable in neighbourhoods made up predominately of their race. This self-segregation is not the result of discrimination (i.e. forcing blacks out of nice areas), but is often the result of comfort - much in the way that many top female high schoolers will seek out Wellesley or Smith for college.

Often, parents will want their children to go to school with their neighbours, whether it be for the convenience of car-pooling, knowing that their children will have friends in their classes, or increasing their ties to the community - in fact, using the children to create a community within the neighbourhood. A system whose aim is to dissolve the connection between a neighbourhood and the schools will only undermine these goals.

One of the children denied entrance to the school of his choice suffers from ADHD and dyslexia. His teachers suggested a small, hands-on school that would best meet his needs. As a plaintiff, he is entirely sympathetic: his educational needs are considered secondary to the vague notion of “diversity.” Ideally, the purpose of public education is to ensure that there is an educated populace; the racial classification system not only ignores this purpose, it undermines it in the name of diversity. There is also something very silly about sending elementary-school children ten miles away from home when there is a perfectly good school just around the corner.

It's a New Year, Part II

2007-06-27T15:43:00.000-05:00

Welcome, y'all, to a new year - one with more blogging activity than the last. ;)

If you would like to be an author, please post in the comments and I'll send you an invite. If you would like your conservative/libertarian blog added to the blogroll, please leave the URL in the comment section and we'll give you some free publicity.

It's a new year

2006-08-17T11:37:00.000-05:00

Welcome back y'all. I've updated the officer's list for the new year on the main page. Looking forward to a great year!

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

2006-04-04T10:16:00.000-05:00

Nelson Lund of Georege Mason University is speaking today at 12:00 in room E on "The Text of the Second Amendment and its Meaning." Feel free to comment on the talk here. I'm also going to look into getting it video taped.

Why we love WnL FedSoc

2006-03-03T14:57:00.000-05:00

Howdy y'all!

I am currenlty designing t-shirts for the best chapter ever, so your input would be most appreciated. The theme is "Top-ten Reasons WnL Rocks/Is Better than Harvard". Random quotes, quips, traditions, events, places, stories and special (yes I mean short jet) people will all be taken into consideration. For example: the Don, Ron and Knipling on Gay Street, Hembree's 'nubian princess' or the fact that Kozinski loves us most of all. Those that speak to the greatest number of WnL fedsoc generations will be chosen for the shirt, but don't let that inhibit the nostalgia on the blog.

Love y'all!

Mdm. President '06/hugnkiss/collateral damage

NSA Serveillance, FISA, and Executive Power

2006-02-27T17:42:00.000-05:00

We've got another event planned for Tuesday the 28th.

Professor John Eastman from Chapman University School of Law will be in Classroom C at noon. The Title of the talk will be:

“Even Congress Is Not Above the Constitution”: FISA and Executive Power to Conduct Enemy Surveillance in Time of War

As always, food provided. Please comment on the speech here afterwards. We love debate!

Same-Sex Marriage Debate

2006-01-30T10:22:00.000-05:00

Today at 7:00. Lawrence Jordan of the Alliance Defense Fund, courtesy of the Christian Legal Society, faces off against Cynthia Czyzyk of Equality Virginia, who obligingly agreed to come on short notice thanks to the efforts of Outlaw, also consponsors of the event. Food after. Then you can come here and comment on the debate!

Attempting to Reverse Two years of Dormancy

2006-01-30T10:17:00.000-05:00

Hi there. This is your friendly neighborhood Propaganda Specialist for the W&L Chapter of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. Just reminding you all that we still exist, and we plan to be more active here. This site may move in the future to the W&L servers at federalist.wlu.edu, but that site needs updating as well. Stay tuned!

This just in: 50 out of 50 states recognize God's role in Government

2004-04-20T09:28:00.000-05:00

.

Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution ...

Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land ...

Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...

Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...

California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom ...

Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe.

Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy ...

Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences ...

Florida 1885, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty ... establish this Constitution...

Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance ... establish this Constitution.

Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings ...

Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form of government.

Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings ... establish this Constitution

Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges ... establish this Constitution.

Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...

Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.

Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine .. acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction.

Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe ... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity ..and devoutly imploring His direction ...

Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom ... establish this Constitution

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings

Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.

Missouri 1845, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ... establish this Constitution ...

Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty, establish this Constitution

Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .. establish this Constitution ..

Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution ...

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors ..

New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ..

New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.

North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties.

North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...

Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common ...

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish this ..

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences..

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance. . .

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy.

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of he State of South Carolina, grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ... establish this

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...

Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.

Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution

Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man ...

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator ... and it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other ...

Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ...

West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we .. reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ...

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility ...

Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ... establish this Constitution ...

Response

2004-04-19T01:24:00.000-05:00

"While the major networks may be dominated by unacknowledged liberal bias, I don’t think the country is populated by a majority blind to that bias." You may be right on that, but I've got a strong feeling that the number of folks out there who don't keep track of politics as religiously as I do and simply take the mainstream media's word with no reservations is extremely high. Otherwise, we wouldn't be seeing the sort of public opinion polls that we regularly see. For example, when Democrats made hay about Bush "increasing" the levels of arsenic in the water, Bush's approval rating on the environment went down. Could this be a conscious and rational response? Sure. Is it more likely just a gut reaction to the headlines and opening story segments that Americans were watching? I think that's more likely.

"But when you imply that right wing pundits are waging war on some kind of grand liberal conspiracy to silence conservative views, some contrary facts must be acknowledged." No, there's no "conspiracy" to "silence" conservative views. Liberal institutions are pushing their own values, sometimes consciously, and I'm sure that sometimes the actors in those institutions aren't even aware of the inherent bias. Indeed, I expect liberal institutions to promote agendas they find compatible with their own views. The problem, as I stated earlier, is that they are unwilling to acknowledge that.

On whether or not conservatives are the "resistance," I must respectfully disagree. Republicans may control the government, but I would say that conservative ideas are not dominant in D.C. During the Reagan administration, conservative ideas were definitely the driving force of the executive branch. The same could be said of Congress right after 1994 when the "Young Turks" sought to revolutionize government. We saw some success in both those periods. But don't kid yourself; for every one step forward we took, the liberals had already pushed us two steps back.

The current administration and Congress no doubt have some conservative leanings and even the spine to advance a conservative principle from time to time. But the desire to remain in power has prodded both to abandon many conservative principles. That's how we ended up with the Medicare bill and the current squabble over just how much pork we can possibly pack into the Highway bill. Political necessity? Perhaps. There's certainly some merit to the argument that we need to stay in power to block the even worse harm that liberals would bring. (Of course, I think if Republicans had the spine to defend, promote, and explain conservative principles, the American people would agree with them...but that leads us back to the media and the ability to actually get those ideas out to the people.)

The bottom line is that while conservatives, conservative sympathizers, and some worthless tagalongs (a certain Senator from PA might fit in this category) may be running the government, they're still fighting a rear guard action. Liberals are succeeding in continually pushing us to the left, even if we occassionally push them back a bit. NR may have it right in that conservatives are "standing athwart history, yelling 'Stop.'" Can we ever win, in a fight like this, where we give more ground than we take? It didn't work for Joe Johnston, but I think that it can be done. If we're ever able to push through even a partial privatization of Social Security, then I think that we'll have reached a level of parity with liberals. Once you crack the foundation of the nanny-state, it may just begin to crumble. Then, and only then, will conservatives no longer be the "resistance."

"The vast majority of his judicial appointments have been approved." True...except where it counts. Only 13 out of 33 Appellate nominations have been confirmed.

"You're right that it is a constant struggle, and it will continue - but "war"?" Yeah, war. The liberals are treating it as such, and you'd make a grave mistake not to do the same.

War? Resistance? You've got to be kidding...

2004-04-18T15:40:00.000-05:00

D-Rock - While the major networks may be dominated by unacknowledged liberal bias, I don’t think the country is populated by a majority blind to that bias. And as you acknowledge, voices from the other side are widely read and heard.
But when you imply that right wing pundits are waging war on some kind of grand liberal conspiracy to silence conservative views, some contrary facts must be acknowledged. First, conservatives are not the "resistance." Bush is the friggin' President. His appointed people run the Executive. His party controls both houses. The vast majority of his judicial appointments have been approved. Yes, certain nominees have been held up, but the filibusters are no more than unfortunate political grandstanding that energizes the faithful on both sides while more and more conservative jurists quietly take the oath. Conservative views are in clear ascendance, hyperbolic references to war against the liberal elite notwithstanding. You're right that it is a constant struggle, and it will continue - but "war"?
By the way if the liberal "elite" is in control of the media, what does that make the conservatives pundits and publications: "commoners, plebeians, rabble, or riffraff"? (courtesy of Thesaurus.com)
The comment on law students – you may be right. I guess I'm just not that intimidated.

That's enough. I've got exams.

Sorry Lefty, You're Missing The Point

2004-04-18T09:30:00.000-05:00

First, on the media:

National Review is a magazine that targets folks who are already on the right (ignoring the few in the center and on the left who read it just to get a sense of what the "other side" is thinking). The same can be said of Limbaugh and much of talk radio. These publications/outlets openly broadcast their bias. Ordinary Americans do not tune in to these sources to get what they believe will be neutral fact reporting devoid of opinion. It's no surprise that our ideas dominate these forums that we created simply to be heard in the first place.

The problem is that CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, The Washington Post, The New York Times (and pretty much every other major paper besides the Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, and The Washington Post) do not openly admit their biases. Ordinary Americans ARE tuning in to these sources and expecting to get bias-free news. Fox News may be an exception, I will certainly say that I can't discern any routine liberal bias at FNC. (But on the other hand, although this is a matter of opinion, I would say that I've never witnessed FNC carrying water for the Republicans/conservatives nearly as much or as blatantly as I've witnessed the other outlets doing the Democrats'/liberals' bidding.)

Now, I must say, I rather object to the use of the term "whining" in this context. If it is considered "whining" to hammer home the point that these news sources are not the solons of impartiality that they pretend to be, then I guess I'll just have to live with that description. This is a campaign by conservatives, and an entirely appropriate one at that, to delegitimize the mainstream media's monopolistic hold on a large segment of the American people. This isn't "being a victim," this is waging war.

A truly unbiased media is an almost impossible goal. Instead, conservatives have built their own institutions while trying to inform the public that the other outlets are not agenda-free. In my view, the optimal outcome would be a return to the early days of the republic when newspapers self-identified as either Federalist or Jeffersonian papers.

Now, on to Federalists and law schools:

"Face it, we are the elite in Washington, D.C."??? I'm not sure how you would define "elite," but I would generally say that it doesn't include being a very small minority in a town dominated by liberal thought, even if you're a somewhat influential minority with the current administration. I would also say that being nearly instant targets of Senate filibusters might be a factor that weighs against calling us "the elite". "The resistance" would be a better label in my opinion.

"we are well represented at most of the top schools – if not in the faculty at least in the student body.
And if you don’t have the guts to challenge the liberal line in class discussion, whose fault is that?" The Federalist Society is not simply about "speaking up in class." Ask yourself, if you're a green 1L in your first semester, mostly ignorant of legal doctrine, whose opinion will carry more weight in your mind? The guy at the front of the classroom who has been there for 10 years and will write your exam? Or the student in the back row who argues with him?
The Federalist Society is about changing legal culture. It's about approaching legal problems and legal thoughts from a direction other than the left. In the context of law schools, it's about getting recognition for ideas that haven't been in the mainstream for 50 years.

Jonah - you are the elite media

2004-04-17T17:31:00.000-05:00

While the networks and most top schools are filled to the brim with liberals, it is time for the right to stop whining about how conservative views are not heard in the "elite" media. NRO, Fox News, Limbaugh, Hannity, Hume are not at the top of the media game? Conservative scholars don't teach at top universities like Texas, Chicago, Harvard, GMU? (OK, maybe not at W&L).
Federalists should certainly be above the "I'm a victim too" crowd. Face it, we are the elite in Washington, D.C., and we are well represented at most of the top schools – if not in the faculty at least in the student body.
And if you don’t have the guts to challenge the liberal line in class discussion, whose fault is that?

Jonah on "Air America"

2004-04-16T08:40:00.000-05:00

No, not "on" as in on the air...just an article he wrote for NRO on "Frankenfreude"

Liberty Law School Dean on the Pledge and Symbolism

2004-04-15T10:10:00.000-05:00

The Power of Symbolism

I sat in a meeting yesterday in which the Chancellor of Liberty University, Dr. Jerry Falwell, made reference to a legal matter currently before the United States Supreme Court—the constitutionality of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. He made a passing reference to the symbolism that a decision by the Supreme Court striking that phrase would hold. Whatever the legal significance, I agree that the profound symbolism of such a decision could have far-reaching consequences to our country. Many such decisions in the courts over the last half century may have had greater symbolic effects than legal ones. It would be a mistake to believe that symbolic expressions and acts are of no significance.

In preparation to teach Foundations of Law to the inaugural class in August, specifically the concept of jurisdiction, I thought about the Gettysburg Address, in which Abraham Lincoln referred to a national rebirth of freedom “under God.” In that simple symbolic allusion he was referring to the most fundamental idea that the Western legal tradition embraced from the Christian faith. The idea is jurisdiction—that God’s sovereignty transcends and stands in judgment of all human sovereignties. As George Weigel puts it, “Because God is God, Caesar is not God and neither are Caesar’s successors, be they kings, presidents, prime ministers, or party general secretaries. And because Caesar and his successors aren’t God, their power is limited, not absolute; in addition to Caesar’s legitimate power, there are other legitimate powers in the world.”

Abraham Lincoln understood this jurisdictional principle and he understood that any rebirth of freedom must come under the auspices of the sovereign whose jurisdiction it is to grant true freedom to men and nations. And in a simple mid-nineteenth century symbolic expression by the President of the United States, he declared that the State cannot be absolute. It cannot be all there is. The State is, in fact, “under God” and must be forever aware that its jurisdiction is thus limited. It does not grant freedoms. Its jurisdiction is to protect and preserve the freedoms granted by God.

The Chancellor is right. Now, just imagine the symbolism expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States of America striking as unconstitutional the phrase “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Bruce Green's Blog

Free Speech in Candad

2004-04-12T13:08:00.000-05:00

Canada: A "Pleasantly Authoritarian Country": Picking up on a theme expressed on the Volokh Conspiracy and elsewhere (and citing my You Can't Say That!), John Leo notes the growing threat to freedom of speech from antidiscrimination legislation in Canada. (Via Instapundit) In particular, Canada, joining many of its provinces (and several European countries), is on the verge of making public criticism of homosexuality a crime.

Fifteen years ago, when I was in law school, supporters of hate speech rules argued that there were no slippery slopes, that Holocaust deniers' and pornographers speech could be restricted without damaging the First Amendment. In Canada, they started making exceptions to their constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech just fifteen years ago. Those cases involved Holocaust deniers and pornographers, and now it's illegal to quote biblical condemnations of homosexual acts. No slippery slopes, indeed.

Treasury of Information

2004-04-12T02:41:00.000-05:00

The Online Library of Liberty has some of the great works of the western world available for download.

Heartwarming anti-Americanism

2004-04-12T02:39:00.000-05:00

Go here for some touching photos from the April 10 rally in San Francisco. Whatever you do though, don't call them unpatriotic or anti-American.

Rice Testimony Drinking Game

2004-04-08T08:03:00.000-05:00

Courtesy of the Volokh Conspiracy

I'm sufficiently confident about this that I think I can write up the scripts. Here are the buzzwords I expect from both sides. Play bingo at home (or, if you want, make it into a drinking game: one drink for each iteration of one of these words).

Of her demeanor, Rice supporters will say she was: "poised," "confident," "authoritative," and/or "polished."
Of her demeanor, Rice detractors will say she was: "defensive," "visibly annoyed," and/or "brusque" ; bonus (if they feel strongly) "petulant" and/or "schoolmarmish"

On the quality of her arguments, Rice supporters will say: "persuasive," "convincing," "firm," and/or "powerful"; bonus (if they feel strongly) "overpowering"
On the quality of her arguments, Rice detractors will say: "unpersuasive," "weak," "vacillating," and/or "shaky,"; bonus (if they feel strongly) "incoherent"

Overall, Rice supporters will describe her performance as: "a home run," "putting doubts to rest," "answering all the questions," "showing Clarke to be a liar," and/or "letting us get on to the people's business"; bonus (if they are really partisan) "refuting the demagogues on the other side"
Overall, Rice detractors will describe her performance as: "raising more questions than it answers," "a missed opportunity to inform the American people," "vindicating Richard Clarke," and/or "raising troubling questions about this Administration"; bonus (if they are really partisan) "you're the demagogue" (followed by: "am not!"; "are too!"; "am not!"; etc.)

I'll be interested to see whether any of the talking heads crosses ideological lines tomorrow. My guess is that they won't, and that their scripts will lean heavily on the words above.

US News Ranking Myth

2004-04-08T00:58:00.000-05:00

The myth of alumni donations is easily explained. US News DOES use it as a factor for ranking undergraduate schools.

True.

2004-04-07T15:48:00.000-05:00

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him: "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am!"

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon approximately 30 feet about sea level. You are 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude."

She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Republican."

"I am," replied the man, "how did you guess?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "Everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."

The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Democrat."

"I am," replied the balloonist, "how did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are, or where you're going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You've made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect ME to solve your problem. You're in EXACTLY the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it's MY fault."

US NEWS Ranking Criteria

2004-04-07T15:37:00.000-05:00

US News reports that its rankings are based on the following 12 measures of "quality" with associated weights:

Faculty Reputation (.25) 25%
Lawyers /Judges Rep (.15) 15%
Median LSAT (.125) 12.5%
Median U'grad GPA (.1) 10%
% Applic. Accepted (.025) 2.5%
Employ at Grad (.06) 6%
Employ after 9 mo. (.12) 12%
Bar Passage % (.02) 2%
School expenditures /student for instruction, library, & supporting services (.0975) 9.75%
Student/Teacher Ratio (.03) 3%
Avg. / student spending on all other items, including financial aid (.015) 1.5%
Total # of library volumes (.0075) 0.75%

If you add up the weights, you'll see that leaves precisely 0.00000 % for "percentage of graduate / class giving".

I think we need to make it clear to students that their participation or non-participation in pledging future income to W&L DOES NOT AFFECT how US News ranks our school.

And, personally, I'm tired of being told how my $0 contribution is going to doom W&L's future reputation.

***UPDATE: Tyler Wood is looking into where the information (myth?) that giving % influences our ranking came from ***

Professor Glendon on "Today's University Students"

2004-04-07T07:58:00.000-05:00

Harvard Law professor Mary Ann Glendon prepared this address on "Today's University Students" for an International Youth Forum, held near Rome this week. The entire speech is excellent, if you have reading time. Otherwise, consider the excerpt below. Professor Glendon was speaking to Catholic students, but I think you'll agree that the wisdom of her comments transcends denominations:

[...]

But if those are your hopes, you are apt to be disappointed in many of today's universities. For universities themselves seem to be losing their sense of purpose and meaning. As a young woman from the United States put it in her answer to my questionnaire: "If I could sum up what has been drilled into my generation's minds in one word, that word would be 'tolerance.' While this has resulted in us being pretty nice people, it has also produced in my opinion a generation that has little concept of objective morality or truth. We are equipped with few guidelines for judging right and wrong."

A young woman who teaches in Kenya wrote that university students there "need role models and something to believe in and they search for these desperately. There is a constant clash between how their parents brought them up and what society is offering them." Sad to say, the postmodern university seems even to be losing its vaunted regard for tolerance of diverse opinions -- at least where religiously grounded moral viewpoints are concerned, and especially if those viewpoints are Christian.

Thus we find ourselves in a curious situation where all too many of the most highly educated men and women in history have a religious formation that remains at a rather primitive level. Have you noticed how many well-educated Catholics seem to be going through life with a kindergarten level apprehension of their own faith? How many of us, for example, have spent as much time deepening our knowledge of the faith as we have on learning to use computers!

I must admit that when I read in the Holy Father's letters to the laity that we are supposed to fearlessly "put out into the deep," I can't help thinking there should be a footnote to the effect that: "Be not afraid" doesn't mean "Be not prepared." When Our Lord told the apostles to put out into the deep, he surely didn't expect them to set out in leaky boats. When he told them to put down their nets, he didn't expect those nets to be full of holes!

This brings me to the most important point I wish to make today: I want to suggest to you that poor formation represents a special danger in a society like ours where education in other areas is so advanced. In contemporary society, if religious formation does not come up to the general level of secular education, we are going to run into trouble defending our beliefs -- even to ourselves. We are going to feel helpless when we come up against the secularism and relativism that are so pervasive in our culture and in the university. We are going to be tongue-tied when our faith comes under unjust attack.

When that happens, many young Catholics drift away from the faith. Countless young men and women today have had an experience in the university comparable to that which caused the great social theorist Alexis de Tocqueville to lose his faith 200 years ago at the height of the Enlightenment. All through his childhood, Tocqueville had been tutored by a pious old priest who had been trained in a simpler era. Then, at the age of 16, he came upon the works of Descartes, Rousseau and Voltaire. Here is how he described that encounter in a letter to a friend many years later:

"I don't know if I've ever told you about an incident in my youth that marked me deeply for the rest of my life; how I was prey to an insatiable curiosity whose only available satisfaction was a large library of books. ... Until that time my life had passed enveloped in a faith that hadn't even allowed doubt to enter. ... Then doubt ... hurt led in with an incredible violence. ... All of a sudden I experienced the sensation people talk about who have been through an earthquake when the ground shakes under their feet, as do the walls around them, the ceilings over their heads, the furniture beneath their hand, all of nature before their eyes. I was seized by the blackest melancholy and then by an extreme disgust with life, though I knew nothing of life. And I was almost prostrated by agitation and terror at the sight of the road that remained for me to travel in this world."

What drew him out of that state, he told his friend, were worldly pleasures to which he abandoned himself for a time. But his letters testify to a lifelong sadness at his incapacity for belief. How many young Catholics have fallen into those same pitfalls when they had to make the difficult transition from their childhood faith to a mature Christianity. Tocqueville at least was confounded by some of the greatest minds in the Western tradition. But many of our contemporaries are not even equipped to deal with simplistic versions of relativism and skepticism!

Some young men and women, like Tocqueville, may spend their whole lives in a kind of melancholy yearning. Others may start to keep their spiritual lives completely private, in a separate compartment sealed off from the rest of their lives. Still others imitate the chameleon, that little lizard who changes his color to blend in with his surroundings. When parts of their Christian heritage don't fit with the spirit of the age, the chameleon just erases them.

How many of these lost searchers, I wonder, might have held their heads high as unapologetic Catholics if somewhere along the way they had become acquainted with our Church's great intellectual tradition and her rich treasure house of social teachings?

Today, in the age of John Paul II, there are really no good excuses for ignoring the intellectual heritage that provides us with resources to meet the challenges of modernity. No Catholic who takes the trouble to tap into that heritage has to stand tongue-tied in the face of alleged conflicts between faith and reason or religion and science.

In "Novo Millennio Ineunte," the Holy Father has a message that is highly relevant to the topic of this conference on "Witnessing to Christ in the University."

"For Christian witness to be effective," he writes, "it is important that special efforts be made to explain properly the reasons for the Church's position, stressing that it is not a case of imposing on non-believers a vision based on faith, but of interpreting and defending the values rooted in the very nature of the human person" (51).

Three implications of those wise words need to be spelled out:

First, those of us who live in pluralistic societies have to be able to give our reasons in terms that are intelligible to all men and women of good will, just as St. Paul had to be "a Jew to the Jews, and a Greek to the [pagan] Greeks." Fortunately, we have great models of how to do that in Catholic social teaching, and in the writings of John Paul II.

Second, we who labor in the intellectual apostolate need to keep our intellectual tradition abreast of the best human and natural science of our times, just as St. Thomas Aquinas did in his day.

And third, because we live in a time when our Church is under relentless attack, we need to be equipped to defend her. That does not mean we have to react to every insult no matter how slight. But we do need to learn to have and to show a decent amount of pride in who we are.

There is nothing wrong with taking pride in our Church's intellectual tradition -- a tradition that predates and outshines the impoverished secularism that is stifling thought in many leading universities. There is nothing wrong with taking pride in our Church's record as the world's foremost institutional voice opposing aggressive population control, abortion, euthanasia, and draconian measures against migrants and the poor.

At a time, and in a culture, where Christianity is under assault from many directions, Catholics do a great disservice when they do not contest the myth that the history of Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular is a history of patriarchy, worldliness, persecution, or exclusion of people or ideas.

Weak? Yes, But...

2004-04-06T21:47:00.000-05:00

....we still made the How Appealing side bar listing of "Even More Blogs". Does that mean we can claim that our blog is "nationally recognized"?

Weak

2004-04-06T21:22:00.000-05:00

Yes, D-Rock, the Blog has indeed fallen on hard times. I saw the Corner piece on Dodd's over-the-top statement ... almost posted some thoughts on it ... and then thought, naahh, D-Rock lives in the Corner -- and who else reads the blog these days?

Now for a completely unrelated topic....

I've come to the conclusion that all the bitching and moaning about how "issue" flyers "dumb down the debate in the law school" is a bunch of baloney. What debate? What "spirited, high-level, intellectual discourse"?

Where has all of this P.C., give no offense, be civil, all opinions are of equal merit, la dee dah nonsense gotten us? To welding school, that's where. Our student body strikes me as no more seriously engaged with the great issues of society, culture, and politics, than what you would find at a manual trade school.

My theory is that the problem isn't with our student body per se, but rather with the focus (or lack thereof) of our educational institution as a whole -- which of course takes its direction from the administration and faculty.

This really harkens back to my earlier post when I said that I've never really thought of our school as a Top 25 program. Top 25 in my mind has more to do with the people you turn out than with the people you bring in. With all due respect to Tom Sansonetti, I don't believe that W&L provides squat beyond adequate legal training these days. An obstensibly Top 25 program should do much more.

For example, my undergrad alma mater's mission was (in part) to "educate, train, and inspire [...] so that each graduate is a [...] leader of character committed to the values of Duty, Honor, Country; professional growth throughout a career [...] and a lifetime of selfless service to the nation." Right there I think you have a model mission for a truly premier law school. Of course, what mattered much more than the mission "on paper" was the mission "as lived." USMA lives this mission.

W&L strikes me as pathetic by comparison. The school has an admirable heritage of honor and gentlemanly conduct, but the legacy of the dead guys -- whom the majority bash for being slaveholders anyway -- just doesn't cut it. To reprise the USMA comparison, Grant, Pershing, and McArthur are great for historical bragging rights -- but if the school wasn't still cranking out Norman Schwartzkopfs, Mike Krzyzewskis, and Jim Nicholsons (the former RNC chair, not the actor), I would start to wonder whether the institution had lost its way.

W&L clearly has. It encourages academic proficiency (I won't even go so far as to say "academic excellence"), increasing racial diversity, and "getting along." Perhaps I've just missed the overarching noble goal of our nationally-recognized institution. If so, I trust one of our 3 remaining bloggers will clue me in.

Chris Dodd's remarks

2004-04-06T19:44:00.000-05:00

Well, I guess that only 3 people read this anymore...and I assume that the Consiglieri has already seen this referenced on NRO...so I guess I'm posting to you, that other reader.

Chris Dodd on the celebration of Byrd's 17,000th vote:
"It has often been said that the man and the moment come together. I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment. Some were right for the time. Robert C. Byrd, in my view, would have been right at any time," said Senator Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.

So now the media is going to go on full offense mode against Dodd, right? If we're to take his statement literally, it means that Byrd would have been right for the time even when he was a member of the KKK.

Now, to be honest, I don't impute ill motives to Dodd on this point, even if he was a major apologist for communists in South America in the 80s, but it would be nice to see the media apply the same standard they applied to Trent Lott when he praised Strom Thurmond.

Hmmm...I guess it doesn't work that way though, does it? To put it in legal terms, every time a man with an "R" next to his name opens his mouth, the comment is subject to strict scrutiny (perhaps ultra strict scrutiny)...but if you have a "D" next to your name, your comment gets the rational (or perhaps irrational) basis test.

Sheer Brilliance

2004-04-06T17:44:00.000-05:00

If you're anything like me, you check out the forums at democraticunderground.com from time to time. Why? To lose whatever scintilla of faith in humanity that you might have left.

I just came across a remarkable suggestion in a thread discussing partial birth abortion and a recent government witness. The witness was a doctor testifying that. according to his research, a fetus at 20 weeks could feel pain. Naturally, this witness was viewed by most of the DUers as a crazy right wing threat to the fundamental human right to have profligate sex with no consequences. But then...the brilliance...one poster had a simple solution. If a fetus can feel pain, we'll just simply anaesthetize the fetus before we abort it. Something tells me he's missing the broader point.

And some people think that liberals live on another planet...where do they get that idea?

Shout out

2004-04-06T16:00:00.000-05:00

I saw the ACS "shout out" to the Fed Soc. Apparently, we don't care about how the law "affects people's lives." I care about how the law affects my life and my family's lives. Those are people. Further, why should we care about how it affects their lives? And, which people's lives should we be more concerned with? Should we worry about Steve Johnson's life or maybe John Smith's? Maybe we should draw up personalized statutes for every person in the US. That way we could tailor laws that will affect each person's life in a positive way. You got to hand it to ACS. They are genuises.

Pepperdine Announcement

2004-04-06T13:20:00.000-05:00

W&L Law Student Named Chair of Constitutional Law at Pepperdine Law School

Full story here.

Our on campus opposition

2004-04-06T11:32:00.000-05:00

Did anyone see the shoutout to the FedSoc in the law notices:

ACS event

The American Constitution Society will be holding its final meeting of
the year at 12:00 on Wednesday April 7th in classroom H. We'll be
discussing next years events and officers.

For those who don't know, the ACS is the liberal counterpart to the
Federalist Society. According to our mission statement, "We seek to
counter the dominant vision of American law today, a narrow conservative
vision that lacks appropriate regard for the ways in which the law
affects people's lives."

if The Consiglieri wants to break news. . .

2004-04-06T10:29:00.000-05:00

. . . he should report that this weekend, "Face" and "J-Rad" were named editors of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

Bias part 2

2004-04-05T10:37:00.000-05:00

Reminded me of an older story...i'll give you the short version.

One day, G.W. Bush is out fishing with his dad. The wind picks up and blows the elder man's hat off. His father asks G.W. to turn the boat around so that he might retrieve his hat. W simply responds, "I'll handle it." With those few words, W steps out of the boat and walks across the surface of the water. He retrieves the hat and brings it back to the boat. Unbeknownst to him, a NY Times reporter observed the whole incident. W awoke the next day to the following headline: "Bush Can't Swim"

Bias

2004-04-05T09:23:00.000-05:00

...forwarded from a liberal friend.

BOY WINS FIGHT WITH DOG

Two boys in Boston were playing basketball when one of them was attacked by a rabid Rottweiler. Thinking quickly, the other boy ripped a board off a nearby fence, wedged it into the dog's collar and twisted it, breaking the dog's neck. A newspaper reporter from the Boston Herald witnessed the incident and rushed over to interview the boy.

The reporter began entering data into his laptop, beginning with the headline: "Brave Young Celtics Fan Saves Friend From Jaws Of Vicious Animal."

"Excuse me, but I'm not a Celtics fan," the little hero interjected.

"Sorry," replied the reporter. "But since we're in Boston, Mass, I just assumed you were."

Hitting the delete key, the reporter begins again, "John Kerry Fan rescues Friend From Horrific Dog Attack."

"But I'm not a Kerry fan either," the boy responds.

The reporter says, "I assumed everybody in this state was either for the Celtics or Kerry or Kennedy. What team or person do you support?"

"I'm a Houston Rockets fan and I really like George W. Bush," the boy says.

Hitting the delete key, the reporter begins again:

"Arrogant, Conservative Brat Kills Beloved Family Pet."

Where do I begin?

2004-04-04T06:55:00.000-05:00

Alas, it's been noted that we've declined below the top 20. As any Yankee fan knows, if Steinbrenner were running the operation here, heads would be rolling.

But could we really be a "conservative" law school and still maintain a high ranking? Wouldn't all the employers run screaming? Yeah, I guess so...just like they run screaming from U. Chicago's law and econ focus...not exactly a left wing perspective.

So, allow me to play Richard Clarke here for a moment (only I plan on being a bit more consistent, a bit less egotistical, and a whole lot less full of crap).

Our problems:
1. employment...perhaps such helpful career advice as "you need to find your voice in your cover letter...you know, give the employer an appealing snapshot of who you are and why they should hire you" isn't terribly constructive
2. bar passage rate...I have a hunch that we could be a bit more selective on our admissions...but more importantly, maybe it would help if more than 1/3 to 1/2 (given the year) of our students learned property law

A few bonehead errors:
hmmm...perhaps the huge size of the second year class wasn't such a good idea in retrospect, considering that it hurt our faculty to student ratio
hmmm...perhaps the administration could find better things to do with their time rather than trying to foist upon a (largely) unwilling SBA a referendum on whether we should allow smoking outdoors around the law school...or making sure that their own notions of "civility" aren't offended

An idea for reform:
How about we go back to being a small law school that rigorously trains our students to be the best possible lawyers instead of filling our curriculum with courses on how to save the world. We could be the VMI or Citadel of law schools. Most folks that have seen the Paper Chase probably are thankful that our law school experience wasn't anything like the experience of those folks at HLS in that day...I'm not...bring on the pain.

My prediction:
These slides are hard to stop absent radical reform. I suspect that alums will not be pleased and donations may just show it. As for myself...I'll consider donating when the powers that be get their acts in gear and stop trying to turn W&L into a politically correct paradise of social activism and social engineering.

Teach law, teach it well, and make any attorney facing someone with W&L on their resume quiver with fear, dammit!

What color is your parachute?

2004-04-02T09:41:00.000-05:00

Well, W&L is down to "23" in US News this year. I, for one, am not optimistic for a turn-around....but then again, I wouldn't have ranked us in the "Top 25" in the first place. Notre Dame now scores ahead of us, and we're barely ahead of William & Mary, which has broken into the 20s.

But mark my words, George Mason will be the #2 law school in VA within the next 10 years. The school has only been around for about 30 years, moved into the top tier in 2002, and is already at 38 in US News (moving up 10 spots in two years). If you go by the educational quality rankings, they already rank ahead of us.

I'm less sure about who #3 will be ... but W&M certainly has a better recent historical trend than we do.

As always, my big question for the administration is why they think our niche for making this school successful is trying to sell Lexington as some sort of Greenwich Village in the VA mountains. It just doesn't work. W&L is a shoe-in to successfully promote itself as THE conservative, country law school, steeped in tradition, gentlemanly conduct, honor, government service, American pie, and wrapped in the flag.

Of course our current faculty and administration would rather eat crow than see the school become successful by those means....

Take that, Enviro-weenies

2004-04-01T15:12:00.000-05:00

AK. Gov. Frank Murkowski, frustrated with the extreme environmental movement's success in blocking ANWR drilling, has just pledged to open more drilling lease sales in state waters just off the ANWR coast. Story here.

As predicted, Specter displays his shamelessness

2004-04-01T14:47:00.000-05:00

A while back, I posted on the "Shameless Eleven," those Senators that voted to kill "Laci and Conner's Law" in an amendment and then turned around and voted for it after their efforts had failed. NRO now reports that Specter is running radio ads on Christian radio stations touting his support for the law. How shameless...how predictably Specter.

High court to mull academy’s mullet case

2004-03-31T08:25:00.000-05:00

The legal dispute over whether a St. Raphael Academy student has a "contractual right" to keep his long hair, or his long locks are disruptive to the parochial high school’s right to set its own rules and he must conform to them or leave, will soon be argued in the state’s high court. Russell Gorman III, an honors student at the school where he is now a junior, secured an injunction to keep his "mullet" cut then won a Superior Court ruling in October 2002.

Full article here.

Pointer via Bashman

Pigs killed, injured en route to packing plant

2004-03-31T08:19:00.000-05:00

...

The Norfolk paper reports here ("25 pigs killed when truck overturns," 3/30/04) on the truck accident involving a load of 100 pigs headed for the Smithfield packing plant. The survivors, presumably, can look forward to the rest of the trip through the packing plant.

via SW Virginia Law Blog

Fantastic Class Distraction

2004-03-30T17:38:00.000-05:00

Check this out. You'll be glad you did.

Free Time . . Bush Shootout

Pickering

2004-03-29T14:00:00.000-05:00

Old news to most of us...60 Minutes interview

DEMONcrats' hijinks hijack the appointment process

2004-03-29T11:22:00.000-05:00

I don't know if any of you have seen, but Daschle has now vowed to hold up every Bush appointee to ANY position until Daschle's "demands" are met. I saw it today in "Roll Call" but I think you may have to have a subscription to get the full story. You might start watching for it on Drudge. Daschle accuses Bush of "poisoning the political process" with his recent recess appointments. Apparently, Daschle has forgotten why Bush needed to make those appointments.

More Gay Activist Common Sense

2004-03-27T09:44:00.000-05:00

"There may be less blood in the blood supply, or we can continue to have a world full of hate and discrimination"

Red Cross Blood Drives Discriminatory?

2004-03-26T09:02:00.000-05:00

Do you feel that somehow you're not measuring up in the eyes of your fellow academics?
Has being politically correct become an increasingly difficult goal to attain in your budding academic career?
Not to worry. Just brush up on the following left-lib etiquette in public discourse and everyday social interactions, and success will be yours.
Just remember that the following are the basic principles upon which all public debate and lifestyle choices must be conducted if you wish to be a true progressive leftist and politically correct:

1. Leftists should be free to call everyone else nasty names, but no one should be permitted to call leftists nasty names in return.

2. For a leftist to call someone nasty names shows social concern and awareness. For someone to call a leftist a nasty name back is immature and impolite and a guise for avoiding the issues.

3. Leftists need never document their claims (from birth, they know more than everyone else).

4. Whenever a leftist is presented with documentation of facts that contradict the leftist's theology, the leftist must insist that no facts have been presented at all.

5. No scientific sources that presents facts contradicting leftist theology are admissible. Only traditional leftist "facts" count.

6. All arguments may be settled by telling a non-leftist that he reminds you of Rush Limbaugh...or Bill O'Reilly.

7. Never ever take an economics course.

8. Never recognize the fact that every idea of Marx's was debunked over 150 years ago. Never read any social science written since Marx. Never admit that you know that Marx was a racist and anti-Semite.

9. Never visit the library.

10. Never study statistics or public-policy analysis.

11. Always insist that you truly believe at least 10% of humans are gay and that gay people are not abnormal.

12. Always say "people of color" so everyone will know you care.

13. Recycle -- conspicuously.

14. Pretend that you do not care about material things, but always buy the most expensive, cutting-edge High Definition TV, home-theatre system, or food processor.

15. Never admit that life ever involves tradeoffs. After all, when there are tradeoffs, it is harder to feel righteous.

16. Always support proposals that make the real problems of the world appear worse, just so long as agreeing with those proposals makes you feel caring and righteous.

17. Never admit that anything could be positive about the United States. Remember, the United States is the source of every problem in the world.

18. Always insist that there are few world problems that could not be improved through the destruction of Israel.

19. Always insist that you have no idea what political correctness is. (Then righteously put down the person next to you for his or her alleged racial or gender insensitivity).

20. Insist that you are more caring and compassionate than anyone else (except perhaps Mother Teresa and Hillary Clinton).

21. Always use the female pronouns half the time or more. That way everyone will know you are egalitarian.

22. Remember, you would rather that poor people in the Third World starve, rather than that they should embrace capitalism and live like you do.

23. Other people (especially in Third World nations) must always be required to relinquish their material well-being, so that you may feel idealistic.

24. Your property is sacred; other people's property is to be used for social engineering and doing good.

25. After religiously following the preceding strictures, commend yourself for being such an enlightened, caring person...unlike George W. Bush and the nation's selfish Republican voters.

Steven Plaut (Iconoclast contributor)

What Good is Canadia Anyway?

2004-03-26T08:57:00.000-05:00

I may have finally found the answer. Check out Iconoclast. Still second fiddle to the Onion of course, but how much can you really expect from the world's largest exporter of asbestos, earthworms, and mobile homes?

Take that, GayLaw

2004-03-26T08:44:00.000-05:00

Armed Services Committee Acts To Strengthen Solomon Amendment

"Unfortunately, the Department of Defense has documented isolated incidents where certain colleges and universities have blocked military recruiters from campus, including one case in which organized faculty and students heckled both recruiters and potential candidates. This simply must not continue."

Full article here.

The Shameless Eleven

2004-03-25T22:44:00.000-05:00

So, the Senate finally passed the bill making the killing of a fetus during a violent crime a separate offense. The final vote was 61-38. But the actual vote was much closer, Feinstein had introduced an amendment that was a substitute...the key provision was essentially the exact opposite of the bill being considered. That amendment was only defeated by a vote of 50-49.

What does that mean? In short, 11 Senators were against this bill and tried to kill it, but were too ashamed to let their constituents find out about their real position. It's a reverse Kerry: "I only voted against it before I voted for it."

The Hall of Shame (Senators not willing to let their real preferences be shown to the voters):

Specter, Daschle, Carper, Bingaman, Rockefeller, Landrieu, Dorgan, Pryor, Dayton, Conrad, Reid.

Answer: Approximately 250,000 of his own People

2004-03-25T16:36:00.000-05:00

A vast, documented record of Saddam's crimes already exists, from his campaign to kill thousands of Kurds and Shiite Muslims to his use of chemical weapons against Iran and the killing of hundreds of Kuwaitis. The State Department also has collected such evidence for years.

By one conservative estimate, Saddam "murdered a quarter million of his own people," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, which analyzed 18 tons of documents in the 1990s about the eradication of Kurdish villages.

And since April, the Pentagon reports that mass graves have been unearthed that may contain the remains of 300,000 people

See: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/7491699.htm

dead iraqi civilians

2004-03-24T20:13:00.000-05:00

Does anyone have the numbers on how many iraqi and kuwaiti civilians are dead because of Sadaam?

dead iraqi soldiers

2004-03-24T16:24:00.000-05:00

Does anyone have the numbers on how many iraqi soldiers and random thugs we've killed?

Judicial Nominations

2004-03-23T16:11:00.000-05:00

For those of you who haven't yet lost interest in the judicial nomination wars, here are the latest stats from DOJ/OLP on Bush's nominees to the federal bench:

Combined Art III nominees: 118
Combined Art III nominees confirmed: 71 (60%)

Circuit Court of Appeals nominees: 32
Circuit Court of Appeals nominees confirmed: 13 (41%)

25 of the 46 current vacancies on the federal bench are so-called "judicial emergencies"

Idiots of the World, Unite!

2004-03-23T00:01:00.000-05:00

If you haven't yet done so, be sure to check out these photos of the protestors. They've been floating around many blogs, so you may have already seen them. These are the photos that the media won't show.

My hunch is that these people are the reason we have warning labels on everything...otherwise they'd all try making toast in the bathtub (and it might not be such a bad thing).

The amendment is the wrong approach

2004-03-22T16:08:00.000-05:00

While the Scalia-esc slippery slope, parade of horribles argument is valid in a few specific cases, the answer is not an amendment restricting marriage to one-man-one-woman but rather an examination of the hodge-podge of laws that single out marriage for special benefits and responsibilities. There is merit to protecting and favoring the family as a stabilizing force in society, but there is little connection between some of these laws and this laudable goal. Further, some of the incidents of marriage that the proposed amendment would deny same-sex couples should rightly be applied to these couples. For example, lesbians adopt and have children, but currently cannot do so as a legal couple in some (all?) states. If one partner dies, the other partner does not immediately get custody. As a result, a child is removed from the home of his only parent after suffering the tragedy of losing a parent. This child becomes the ward of the state (or is placed with relatives the child may or may not know). And what about the couple that separates? The single parent, simply because she is a lesbian, does not have the protections of alimony and child support laws. Is this really what we want a constitutional amendment to achieve?
While I respect that one's religion may never recognize same-sex couples as married (in the eyes of God), the law is a different matter. IMO the legislature should get out of the marriage business where it can and extend the law where it makes sense – starting with the protection of the children of same sex couples and the protection of those who rely on the contract of a declared joint household.

Take the Test

2004-03-22T11:47:00.000-05:00

I am the Godfather
http://similarminds.com/movie.html

The Next Step?

2004-03-22T08:42:00.000-05:00

...

"Next." Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

"Names?"

"Tim and Jim Jones."

"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."

"Yes, we're brothers."

"Brothers? You can't get married."

"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender
couples?"

"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"

"Incest?" No, we are not gay."

"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"

"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other.
Besides, we don't have any other prospects."

"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples
who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay,
you can
get married to a woman."

"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have.
But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I
want to marry Jim."

"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just
because we are not gay?"

"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

"Hi. We are here to get married."

"Names?"

"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

"Who wants to marry whom?"

"We all want to marry each other."

"But there are four of you!"

"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane
loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and
me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can
express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."

"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."

"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"

"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's
just for couples."

"Since when are you standing on tradition?"

"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."

"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples.
The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the
constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a
marriage license!"

"All right, all right. Next."

"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."

"In what names?"

"David Deets."

"And the other man?"

"That's all. I want to marry myself."

"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"

"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to
marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."

"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"

a little help?

2004-03-17T16:24:00.000-05:00

Maybe Ryan and Matt could get these guys to help them out with their fight against the Gay Law group.

From the Corner

2004-03-17T15:03:00.000-05:00

W&L not conservative? Tell us something we don't already know....

NOT MY FIGHT [Jonah Goldberg]

But a lot of Hampden-Syndey students are mighty peeved by the idea that W&L is more conservative. One of many similar emails:

Slanderer! The two most conservative colleges in the U.S. are Hampden-Sydney and Hillsdale. Washington & Lee looks conservative, but is really pretty light in it's well-shined loafers. What would the Princeton Review know about conservative schools anyway. Hillsdale is pretty doctrinaire, but it's in the middle of the tundra. How can you read your Austrian economics with mittens on? The litmus test for conservative colleges in the south is the shotgun to student ratio, and Hampden-Sydney has got everyone beat. It must be something like 3:1. Plus, it never went co-ed, unlike the nancy boys at Washington and Leigh.

Posted at 01:13 PM

more hints

2004-03-17T11:46:00.000-05:00

I am The Raiders of the Lost Ark; I live for adventure, fortune-hunting, and danger according to http://similarminds.com/movie.html.

And, somehow, I am JFK; I like power because it increases my sexual options; I am a thrill-seeker by nature and don't shy away from risky behavior according to http://similarminds.com/leader.html. Funny, somehow I thought I would be Lincoln.

In case you were wondering . . .

2004-03-17T11:06:00.000-05:00

. . . who farmgirl07 is, I'll give you a littel hint. I scored a 139 on the Libertarian Purity Test.

Goldberg's Recap of Last Night

2004-03-17T10:41:00.000-05:00

From the Corner...

WASHINGTON & LEE [Jonah Goldberg]

I had a very nice time down in Lexington last night. The campus is beautiful. I gave my remarks in Lee Chapel which is stately, impressive and contains the remains of the whole Lee family from what I gather (the horse is somewhere nearby too). Giving a speech in a chapel, never mind this particular chapel, was a bit inhibiting when it comes to the usual porn jokes and what not. But I told them in Latin so only the really cool kids got them. My one regret is that I didn't get to make likee Cyrus in the "Warriors" and shout "Caaaaannnnn youuuuuu diiiiiiggggg it!?" even once. (Also, just for the record since I hear the W&L administration is fixated on Williams College, their chapel is nicer looking though less historic).

The crowd wasn't as big as I would have expected from a school which is allegedly the most conservative in the country (#2 actually after Grove City according to Princeton Review). Other impressions: as I anticipated, the students at first were painfully polite in the finest southern tradition (Mr. Goldberg this, Mr. Goldberg that) almost -- but not quite -- reaching that children-of-the-corn uniformity. But once they loosened up they were a very impressive bunch of kids and at least the ones I met are disturbingly up-to-speed on all things NRO. Brett Kirwan the young man who introduced me might as well have been parked outside my house in a gray Buick with a parabolic mic taking notes, he had so many G-philic details (that's G-phillic with two "i"s, one "l" an no "a"s). Lexington is a very charming little town from what I saw of it (which wasn't much). And, man, what a thriving gay community!

Anyway, thanks very much to Brett, Victoria Guroian (Chairwoman of the ominously titled "Welcoming Committee") and to the Young Americans Foundation and W&L Hillel (go figure!) for bringing me to campus.

Scalia at William & Mary

2004-03-17T09:59:00.000-05:00

Scalia's comments at William & Mary this week.

The Justice has been to George Mason, UVA (more than once), and William & Mary since my class started law school.

I could swear there was another top-tier law school in VA. The name escapes me right now though...

Posting Guidelines

2004-03-17T09:49:00.000-05:00

Wedged in today's misformatted law notices, is an announcement that the SBA voted 9-0 last night to change the posting guidelines. I'm disturbed that this action was taken without any prior notice and opportunity to address the SBA on the issue. Comments?

-----------

Lara JacobsSBA Posting Guidelines
The SBA adopted the following posting guidelines at its meeting last
night, by a 9-0 vote.

Bylaw 10 : Posting Guidelines (Adopted 3/16/04)

Section 10.01 : Recognized Law School Organizations
1. Shall be permitted to post a maximum of fifteen (15) posters for
each event, and a total of thirty (30) posters maximum at any one time.
2. Such posters shall be event specific and shall be posted for a
maximum duration of twenty-eight (28) days.
3. Postings shall be permitted on:
(A) Any designated bulletin boards
(B) The staircase leading from the student parking lot, including the
glass windows and the doors that lead into and out of this staircase.
The double wooden doors that lead to Classroom A
All Carrels
The door at the bottom of the staircase leading down from the Main
Reading Room
The double wooden doors near the SBA Free Speech Board
The TV Area
4. Postings shall not be permitted:
(A) On any other windows
(B) On any painted surfaces
(C) In the Moot Court Lobby Area
(D) In the Moot Court Lobby Hallway
(E) In the Computer Lab Hallway
(F) On the 4th Floor, except in designated Posting Areas
(G) On any restroom door or within any restroom
(H) In or around any classroom entrance, including the
classroom hallways
(I ) On any organization board where such posting is not
expressly permitted by that organization
(J) On the SBA free speech board

Section 10.02 : Registered Law School Students
1. Shall be permitted to post on any designated bulletin board
including the SBA free speech board and on their own personal carrel.

Section 10.03 : Non Law School Individuals and Organizations
1. Signs must be approved and date stamped by the Library Circulation
Desk before posting.
2. Signs may only be posted on designated bulletin boards.
3. Signs may not be posted on student carrels, library doors or the
SBA free spee

(the rest must have been cut off)

To those of you who missed the Goldberg speech...

2004-03-16T21:51:00.000-05:00

SHAME ON YOU!

Foreign Leaders for Kerry

2004-03-16T15:52:00.000-05:00

I was just going to put together a spoof like this, but somebody beat me to it.

Canadians

2004-03-15T21:24:00.000-05:00

It seems that Canadians are trying to expand. This can't be good for anybody.

Which weird Latin phrase are you?

2004-03-15T15:30:00.000-05:00

Stupid time waster, perhaps.

But I like the result. Here's which phrase I am:

Magister Mundi sum! "I am the Master of the Universe!" You are full of yourself, but you're so cool you probably deserve to be. Rock on.