Watching Cindy Sheehan Get Arrested

Cindy Sheehan was arrested last night in front of the White House as a result of a protest against the War in Iraq. I was in class when the protest started, but since the White House is only about 4 blocks from GW, I biked over after class managed to catch the cops giving their “final warning” to the protesters. Click here for a short movie of the warning, as well as two law students (myself and a classmate who biked over w/me) sounding silly as we speculate about what actual law these people were supposedly breaking. Apparently you need a permit to lay down on the sidewalk, but don't tell the homeless of this city!

We hung around and watched a bit but since we were forced to stand across the street, it was hard to see much. The police zip-tied the protesters hands and forced them to sit up, then they slowly took them, one-by-one, to the two trucks they had there to haul them away. One strange thing I noticed was that someone seemed to be taking a picture of each protester just before he/she was placed in the truck. The photographer didn't appear to be wearing a uniform, so was that a press person, or a lawyer, or a cop? Not a major fact, but it just seemed odd.

Sheehan says she's going to repeat this protest for four days. I'll take a vote: Should I go join her?

In my “PI Lawyering” class last week we talked about whether getting arrested for civil disobedience could be a problem for being admitted to the bar or getting a job. I argued that it wasn't a crime of moral turpitude so it shouldn't affect bar admittance too badly, and that if an employer didn't like something like that, I didn't want the job. Obviously such a position would dramatically narrow the range of jobs available, but I think the bar admittance thing is really the bigger question. Does anyone know anything about this? Do arrests for civil disobedience create problems for bar membership?

Posted 10:06 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack | 3L general politics

Miers Withdraws Herself

NPR is reporting that Harriet Miers withdrew herself from the nomination process for the Supreme Court. I can't find anything online yet, but it should be up in a few minutes.

UPDATE 9:11 a.m.: Ok, the news is confirmed here.

UPDATE 10:45 a.m.: “Harriet Miers” has blackened “her” blog in morning over “her” withdrawal.

More important, check out the posts over at TG's Political Wire on this today. Check out this progression of stories:

1. Reports that the White House was planning to deflect attention away from the indictments that are almost certainly coming from Plamegate.
2. Reports that the Miers nomination is seriously going to decrease contributions to the Republican party.
3. A quote arguing that the Christian right has taken over the Republican party. (Note that Christian conservatives were leading the fight against Miers.)
4. And finally, Miers withdraws.

So the politics of distraction and whoring for the polls continues as the administration dances to the tune of the Christian right. Oh, don't you love this country?

Note that even Miers' letter of withdrawal shows how inappropriate she was for the Supreme Court:

I am concerned that the confirmation process presents a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of the country.

Even as a nominee for the Supreme Court she still speaks of the White House as something she's a part of. And they were trying to tell us she'd be able to separate herself from that on the bench. Right.

I heard someone argue recently that the Yubbledewers never intended Miers to be confirmed; rather, they nominated her knowing she'd fail but knowing also that no one could live up to the standard set by John Roberts. Therefore, the strategy was to put up someone really bad, so that whoever they put up next will seem that much better and people will care less that the next nominee just isn't up to the Roberts level. I disagree that Roberts set such a high bar, although it's funny how much better Roberts looks compared to Miers. Perhaps that was the strategy: Nominate someone totally not qualified just to etch more deeply the impression that Roberts really is qualified.

Ok, I'll stop w/the baseless speculation. This news speaks for itself in enough ways you won't need my rants to put it into context. Although I will say one more cynical thing: Brace yourself because if you thought Miers was bad I'm betting you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

Posted 09:02 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack | general politics law general