Fantasy Justice

Here's some possible weekend fun: Lawpsided's Fantasy Supreme Court League. I'm just the messenger.

And now it's back to memo revisions (damn! I'd been hoping the draft wouldn't need so much work the second time around) and class outlines. But first, NaNoWriMo has begun beckoning again and I haven't been able to resist its siren song.

Now I'm 12,000 words into some schlocky thing about cab drivers and tv watchers and Professional Finders (thanks for the idear, seester). So words words words! Studying for finals in law school is so way overrrated, don't you think? ;-)

Posted 08:18 AM | Comments (1) | law school

Politics of Fear

It has begun. As the pundits begin to talk of Dean consolidating his lead in the field of Democratic candidates for President, they've also begun to stoke the fires of fear against him. The pundits are probably getting plenty of help here from the Republicans and from the other Democratic candidates, but the fearmongering seems go like this: Dean's got a bad temper, and that's going to make him a bad leader.

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of the politics of fear. I'm tired of Democrats who are so afraid of offending anyone that they'll compromise with everyone and everything. I'm tired of Democrats who pretend that the current Administration and the Republican leaders in Congress are anything other than extreme ideologues who are quite simply destroying out country. There are plenty of reasons to be angry with them and their policies, and Dean certainly is. Does this mean he'll turn his anger on foreign leaders and diplomats, despite the fact that he's always said the first thing he wants to do as President is restore the U.S.'s relationship with the world? I don't think so. Dean is not the Cowboy that Bush is; Dean is angry at the things all Americans should be angry at, and I—along with over 3 million union members—am willing to give him the chance to show that he can put that anger to good use as our next President.

Update: Salon recently ran an article about Dean as "angry man", and now their readers weigh in. Good stuff.

Posted 05:49 AM | Comments (2) | election 2004

Disgusting Durst

Life is may often be stranger than fiction, but in this case, it's also much more sad and disgusting:

Robert A. Durst, the New York multimillionaire who admitted that he had butchered his 71-year-old neighbor's body with a bow saw and dumped the parts into Galveston Bay, was acquitted of the man's murder on Tuesday. Mr. Durst told the jury that despite what happened afterward, the killing itself had been accidental and an act of self-defense.

What the hell? You can admit to killing someone, sawing up the body, dumping the body parts in the bay, and be acquitted? And all this was after Durst's first wife mysteriously disappeared, his "confidant" was murdered without explanation, and he'd been running from the cops and displaying all kinds of off-his-rocker behavior. Yet a jury said, "Oh, yeah, all that's a little odd, but it's ok. We don't think you should be punished for any of that."

Apparently, the experts are scratching their heads, trying to understand this obscene verdict:

Legal experts in Texas said yesterday that local mores might play some part in understanding the not guilty verdict, but could not explain most of it. Several factors were possibly at work, they said the most obvious being the stunning strategies of the defense team, Mike Ramsey, Dick DeGuerin and Chip Lewis, who overcame what looked like impossible hurdles standing between Mr. Durst and acquittal.

But they're never going to figure it out because they're not even seeing the most gross and obvious factor here: Class. Durst is a rich white man, and rich white men can simply get away with murder in our society. Does anyone think that if Durst had been poor he would have been acquitted? Or if he'd been black or Hispanic or, god forbid, "Arab," would he have been acquitted? Somehow I think not. But our society gives rich white men a pass. In fact, we encourage them to get rich by lying, stealing and cheating, so when they're successful at that, and they actually outright murder someone and chop up the body, we say, "So?"

Call me crazy, but I think we should reverse our twisted assumptions. Think about it: One of the best ways to get rich in our society is to lie, cheat and steal, and very often the people who do this are white and male. See Enron, Worldcom, etc., not to mention the countless manufacturers who have moved production overseas to exploit cheap labor and the lack of environmental regulations and worker protections. Therefore, we should begin from the assumption that wealthy white men are more suspect, more morally culpable, more liable to do bad (and criminal) things, than are poor or working class people, and/or people of color.

But nevermind. For a second I forgot: We live in a classless and colorblind society. The Durst verdict proves that, doesn't it?

Posted 05:34 AM | Comments (2) | law general

Inflatable Justice Playthings

For your reading enjoyment: Yesterday's CrimLaw hypos (we're covering inchoate crimes, a.k.a. attempts):

Hypo 1: Prof CrimLaw has "an anatomically correct, life-size, inflatable Justice Clarence Thomas plaything." It's so real that if you saw it, you'd think it really was the Justice. Prof CivPro doesn't like Justice Thomas, so when Prof CivPro sees the plaything, he pulls out a gun and shoots it through the heart. Is Prof CivPro guilty of attempted murder under the MPC (Model Penal Code)?

(Answer: Probably, because he had the requisite intent. See MPC 5.01.)

Hypo 2: Prof CrimLaw has the same "anatomically correct, life-size, inflatable Justice Clarence Thomas plaything," but he tells Prof CivPro it's not a plaything, it's actually an authentic Voodoo relic. Prof CrimLaw further explains that if a person were to stick 20 needles into the relic, the real Justice Clarence Thomas would die. Prof CrimLaw leaves the room, and when he returns, he finds Prof CivPro inserting the twentieth needle into the "anatomically correct, life-size, inflatable Justice Clarence Thomas relic." Is Prof CivPro guilty of attempted murder under the MPC?

(Answer: Probably, but see MPC 5.05(2), Mitigation.)

I think Prof CrimLaw just enjoyed saying "anatomically correct, life-size, inflatable Justice Clarence Thomas plaything." Try it; it's fun.

Posted 06:12 AM | Comments (2) | law school

Pre-Finals Reminder

As DG has been noting, it's getting to be that time when the library is full of intensely studying peoples and the stress levels start going into interstellar orbits. So of course there's no better time than now to pause and consider Dahlia Lithwick's "Letter to a Young Law Student" for a quick reminder of what you're doing here in the first place. [Link via Professor Yin.] Remember Lithwick's sage words:

If there is one law of law-school thinking it's this: "If everyone else wants something, I must want it, too." Not since the days of the Tonka backhoe and Malibu Skipper will you have so lunged for stuff in which you have no real interest, just because everyone else is lunging. Law school manages to impose odd new values on virtually everyone. And each step of the way, law students make choices—to interview with certain firms, take certain classes, apply for certain clerkships—based on an impoverished sense of other options and the fear that other people will get all the good stuff if you don't grab it. This is hard advice to give and harder, I expect, to take. Fear and conformity dig some pretty deep paths at law school. Don't just follow because they are there.

The other day, So Sue Me posted her advice for incoming 1Ls which I also recommend, especially tip #7:

If you are not comfortable with idea that you will become cynical, do not apply to law school.

I'm wondering if perhaps the two peices of advice go together. Does the massive pressure to conform actually produce the cynicism?

As for me, I'm honestly just tired of it all. I'm tired of reading cases and never getting to really discuss them (the Socratic method is absolute shyte, pedagogically speaking—just ask Professor Leiter), and tired of talking about outlines and study habits and whether to attend the next BarBri review session and what's going to count or not count when I'm working for a firm. That reminds me, I think I'm going to get a t-shirt to wear every day that says: "No offense to you if you're hoping to get a firm job, but please don't assume that I sympathize with your hopes because, well, I don't."

Oops, that cynicism might be getting the better of me.

"Maybe all I need is a shot in the arm." —Wilco.

Anyway, good luck to all you 1L peeps in getting through this November hump. May your outlines write themselves and may all your cases be short from here to December.

Posted 07:58 PM | Comments (2) | law school

Law and Economics (Chicago School)

What is the value of Chicago School style Law and Economics?

Exhibit 1: A scene from "Fight Club" in which the Narrator (played by Ed Norton) is on a plane describing his job to a fellow passenger:

Narrator: "A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now: should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

Business woman on plane: "Are there a lot of these kinds of accidents?"

Narrator: "You wouldn't believe."

Business woman on plane: "Which car company do you work for?"

Narrator: "A major one."

Exhibit 2: Judge Learned Hand's decision in U.S. v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F.2d 169 (2d Cir. 1947) in which Hand describes how to determine a barge owner's duty to provide against injuries caused by barge acccidents. Hand says the duty is a function of three variables:

(1) The probablility that she will break away; (2) the gravity of the resulting injury, if she does; (3) the burden of adequate precautions. Possibly it serves to bring this notion into relief to state it in algebraic terms: if the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B: liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B [is less than] PL.

Discuss.

Posted 07:53 AM | Comments (2) | law general law school

Give 'Em Hell, Gore

Yesterday, Al Gore gave another in his continuing series of speeches condemning the Bush administration for its so-called "war on terror." I spent the day volunteering at the event, which was sponsored by MoveOn.org and the ACS. It looks like the speech is beginning to get decent coverage from the press, but you can also read the full text here.

Although the major press seems to be focusing on the sensational comparison of the Bush Administration to Big Brother, the real crux of the speech for me was the way Gore explained that argument. Gore said:

I want to challenge the Bush Administration’s implicit assumption that we have to give up many of our traditional freedoms in order to be safe from terrorists. 

Because it is simply not true. 

In fact, in my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at Osama Bin Laden.

In both cases, the Administration has attacked the wrong target.

In both cases they have recklessly put our country in grave and unnecessary danger, while avoiding and neglecting obvious and much more important challenges that would actually help to protect the country.

In both cases, the administration has fostered false impressions and misled the nation with superficial, emotional and manipulative presentations that are not worthy of American Democracy. 

In both cases they have exploited public fears for partisan political gain and postured themselves as bold defenders of our country while actually weakening not strengthening America.

In both cases, they have used unprecedented secrecy and deception in order to avoid accountability to the Congress, the Courts, the press and the people.

Indeed, this Administration has turned the fundamental presumption of our democracy on its head.  A government of and for the people is supposed to be generally open to public scrutiny by the people -- while the private information of the people themselves should be routinely protected from government intrusion. 

But instead, this Administration is seeking to conduct its work in secret even as it demands broad unfettered access to personal information about American citizens.  Under the rubric of protecting national security, they have obtained new powers to gather information from citizens and to keep it secret. Yet at the same time they themselves refuse to disclose information that is highly relevant to the war against terrorism.

Funny, isn't it? One of the most secretive (if not the most secretive) administrations in American history is also the most eager to rewrite laws to enable government agents to pry into our private lives. Again I wonder, why would anyone even consider voting for Bush in 2204?

Posted 06:55 AM | election 2004 general politics