« February 08, 2004 - February 14, 2004 | Main | February 22, 2004 - February 28, 2004 »
1L Summer Dilemma -- Help?
I expected and feared that the 1L summer job hunt would be long and arduous. Instead, it's looking like it might be short and sticky. Here's the deal:
I've been offered a great summer position w/a nearby public defender's office. This job would give me time watching trials, interviewing clients, collecting evidence, helping to write memos, and even conducting mock trials w/my fellow summer interns. In short, it would give me incredible experience and I'm excited by the opportunity. They've offered me the job and they want to know within a week or so whether I'm going to accept.
However, I was also lucky enough to get an interview with a major labor union offering a summer fellowship through the Peggy Browning Fund. This would also be an incredible, but very different experience. The big trouble is, the interview isn't for 2 more weeks and then I'm sure they won't pick a candidate for at least a few days after that. That means I won't know if my interview could really be a job for possibly three more weeks.
So the question is: What should I do? My options appear to be roughly:
- Take the public defender job I know I've got and just plan to say "no" to the union if they offer me a job. (I think I should go to the union interview either way for the experience and the "networking.")
- Try to stall the public defender job for 2-3 weeks until I know whether I'll get an offer from the union, then choose.
- Say "no" to the public defender job I know I've got in the hope that I'll get an offer from the union.
The pros of the union job are that it would be a big step toward a career as a labor lawyer, which really sounds great to me. While I remain unsure about being a public defender, I'm nearly certain I'd be a great labor lawyer and that I'd love doing that. Another "pro" is that the union job comes with money and whatever "prestige" a Peggy Browning Summer Fellowship would grant. Finally, the union is very nearby; I could bike to work in about 5-10 minutes every day. The big cons of the union job: I don't have it yet. I only have an interview, and that's still a long way from a job offer.
So what should I do? Any thoughts or suggestions would be appreciated.
Posted 08:19 AM | Comments (12) | law school
Rule of BadLaw
There's a fascinating discussion going on over at Letters of Marque in response to Anthony's complaint: The "pious guardians of the rule of law" (Anthony targets the NY Times as an example) complained about former Judge Roy Moore's fight to keep the Ten Commandments monument in his courtroom; however, those same "pious guardians" are not now complaining as San Francisco Mayor Newsom allows gay couples to marry. (Incidentally, Anthony's complaint seems to be a right wing meme, although it looks like Anthony posted before Rush did.)
My favorite comment thus far (scroll down) comes from the arbitrary aardvark:
As a government official, the mayor took an oath of office to uphold the constitution and laws of california and of the united states. If california, by initiative, passed a (statute - i think that's the term i want) saying blacks could not marry whites, the mayor would be obligated to ignore that and issue marriage licenses to mixed race couples. Such an initiative would not be law, because it conflicts with the equalprotection clauses of the california constitution and is void. Similarly, the South Carolina constitution until recently banned mixed-race marriages, but this clause was void due to the Supremacy Clause and equal protection under the federal constitution. Our obligation, as lawyers, lawyer wannabes, office-holders, some of you may be veterans, anyone who has sworn to uphold the constitution, is to do so. Now, today, not to wait for a court. I'm under the impression the mayor genuinely believes he is following the california constitution. Failure to do so can be malfeasance in office, a federal felony (18 usc 241?), and a breach of ethics. Moore, on the other hand, as far as I know, was deliberately acting in defiance of the constitution. I deal pretty much daily with government lawyers who seek to enforce unconstitutional statutes. I consider this profoundly unethical, as well as illegal. I am aware that my position is a minority one. But I'm right :).
Brilliant.
In random "blawg" news, enbanc, a group blog with which I was very very briefly associated, has met a mysterious and unilateral end.
Ripping straight from the headlines at JD2B, don't miss the six kinds of law students (Survivors rule!), a rhymed rendition of Marbury v. Madison (also brilliant!), and appellate blawger extraordinaire Howard Bashman's thoughts on how to become an appellate lawyer. Somehow I fear Survivors do not often become appellate lawyers, you think?
Finally, the National Coalition for Students with Disabilities has a new blog and is looking for submissions. They're also looking for interns and volunteer help, so scoot over there if you've got some time to spare or are looking for a good public interest gig for the summer.
Posted 07:32 AM | law general law school
Cold Call Close Call
Only one of this semester's Profs uses the old cold call method to elicit class participation. ProfContracts is sticking with his wonderful method of simply moving methodically up and down each row, calling on each person in turn, so you can always know well in advance if you're going to be one of the people called on in the next class. ProfProperty uses a completely volunteer system, at least until he gets down to that frightened little core that can't bring themselves to ever raise their hands, at which point he's assured us he'll cold call, if necessary. ProfConLaw uses a fairly inefficient row-by-row method, so you can know if your row is going to be "on call" on a given day, but you don't know if you'll get called on that day or not. It's inefficient because she doesn't seem to be able to keep very good track of who she has and hasn't called on, and I don't think we're moving through people at an adequate pace to get to everyone this semester (which is fine by me). But whatever. It's ProfCivPro who's sticking with the straight cold-call method, leaving us all wondering, every single day, if this could be our day to be in the hotseat.
Apparently, yesterday was my day.
Somehow I wondered if it might be. I had a feeling. I don't know why, but it may have had something to do with the fact that I skipped the last class last Friday (there were reasons!) and hadn't looked at the material at all in about a week. That's always a good way to put your name at the top of the cold-call list: Go to class completely unprepared. So I'd prepared a good response if she called on me. It was going to go like this:
ProfCivPro: Mr. ambimb, could you tell us what Justice Harlan was thinking in his Hannah dissent?
Me: Well, um, is failing to read a criminal offense?
ProfCivPro: (baffled) What? Why do you ask?
Me: Because I'd like to plead the fifth.
Wouldn't that be really funny, ha ha? But of course, when ProfCivPro called on me, I didn't say anything like that. Instead, I read from the book. Luckily, I had read the material she was asking about; it had just been so long since I'd read it or looked at it that I didn't remember what it was about. So ProfCivPro would ask a question, I'd scan the sentences I'd highlighted sometime last week or the week before, and just start reading one that sounded like it might be on the topic of her question. At the end of the sentence, I'd raise the tone of my voice so it would sound like I was asking a question, i.e. "is that the answer you were looking for?" I hoped this would signal ProfCivPro she better not press me too hard because I didn't really know what I was talking about, and mostly it worked. She'd just start talking and fill in the explanation that she'd really been looking for from me. Overall, the strategy worked, and by the time she'd finished questioning me, I actually understood what we'd been talking about. My final bit of luck came when ProfCivPro moved on to her next respondent at precisely the point where my previous reading (and highlighting) had ended. She even congratulated me on a job well done.
Not bad, considering I'd entered class planning to just throw myself on her mercies if she called on me. I'm thinking I better be extra careful for a while because my personal storehouse of luck is now completely empty. I guess that means my mock trial opponents this Saturday are going to have a pretty easy time of it.
Posted 06:59 AM | Comments (4) | law school
Shifting Gears
What is there to say that hasn't been or isn't being said? The Columbia-Union rounds up a number of responses to Dean's withdrawal from the race, and here's the actual withdrawal speech where Dean asks supporters to stick together and do whatever it takes to get Bush out of office. At least two publications (here and here) have published stories entitled "Howard's End." The latter editorial is from John Margolis, who writes:
On the campaign trail, though, Dr. Dean was a dud. Here was a man with neither a thirst for the political jugular nor a sense of timing.
I understand that to some people, this is what made Dean "unelectable" in this race -- he's just not a very good politician. The irony is that this is exactly why so many people like me supported him. Imagine: A politician who's not a politician, but a person. Yeah, imagine that.
I voted Nader in 2000. I never registered as a Democrat before this year. Prior to Dean's candidacy, I detested the Democratic Party only slightly less than I abhored the Republican Party. I thought a third party was the only solution to the hopeless mess that is national politics today. Dean and his campaign made me rethink all that; I started to hope again that maybe, instead of having to rely on something entirely new, we could just fix what was broken -- the Democratic Party -- and get American politics back on a sane path again.
And perhaps we can. Should Kerry get the nomination, I'll certainly vote for Kerry as a lesser evil than Bush. And should Edwards get the nomination, I'll vote for Edwards as a lesser evil than both of them. Neither offers much hope for real change in the Democratic Party, but hey, I guess we'll have to worry about that later. Right now it's back to the bottom line: (all together now) Redefeat Bush.
Posted 06:46 AM | election 2004
Dean Bows Out
We knew it was coming, now here it is:
From the AP coverage:
The former Vermont governor is the political equivalent of a supernova. Once a long-shot candidate, the Internet phenomenon filled his campaign coffers and attracted thousands of supporters through the spring and summer, pushing him to the head of the crowded Democratic field.
The leader in national polls — and more important state polls in the first states of Iowa and New Hampshire — Dean seemed poised to win the nomination in a runaway. In the end, he never won a single state through 17 contests.
***sigh***
Posted 11:19 AM | election 2004
Wisconsin Wrap
Whoop! There it is:
A big strong second for Edwards. Wonkette sums it up and offers the best line of the night:
The lifeless corpse that is John Kerry. Gotta love that. Oh yeah, Edwards' mirror line was good, too, except he's already got the pretty-boy thing to live down -- maybe he should avoid comments that could be read as narcissistic. I mean, the line is "objects in your rear view mirror may be closer than they appear," right?
Kerry's still the only Dem who beats Bush in nationwide polls, but that could easily change. Perhaps Edwards' strong second last night will tip the "electability" scales in Edwards' favor.
So Kerry and Edwards will battle on, while something ended last night for Howard Dean. Was it his campaign for the Democratic nomination? Probably. Last night he told his supporters to maintain perspective:
And as the cliche goes, in every end there's a beginning. What will Dean do next? There's lots of speculation, and he's planning an "event" for 1 p.m. this afternoon to put an end to most of it (I hope).
Perhaps the best news of the night for Democrats didn't have anything to do with the presidential election, but instead focused on the special election in Kentucky:
Can the Dems win the White House and take back a house of Congress? Kos breaks down the numbers for the House. This Dem turnaround is a realistic possibility, a fact for which we should all thank Howard Dean and his campaign. He won't be our next President, but I don't think history will soon forget what he's done for national politics. I know I won't.
Posted 06:50 AM | Comments (3) | election 2004
You Object Again?
Against most of my better judgment and the requirements of sanity, I'm competing in GW's mock trial competition coming up this weekend and I'm chagrined to report: Mock Trial is hard! For a 1L who has spent a total of about two hours in court and who has never enjoyed watching "Law and Order" type shows,* trying to learn the mechanics of a trial (requests of the court, motions in limine, openings, objections, crosses, objections, directs, objections, redirects, objections, closings), plus the federal rules of evidence, plus the facts of the case -- it's been a huge task.
That said, I'm happy to report: Mock Trial is fun! Although I wasn't excited to play a criminal prosecutor, I've really gotten into the role. It's a fascinating exercise to pore over witness statements and evidence, to plan your direct examinations and prepare your witnesses, and to try to imagine what the other side is going to throw at you. I now understand why trial lawyers can often be great fiction writers -- to prepare for a trial, you have to create the perfect (and perfectly plausible) story to explain how all the facts fit together just right to make your case to the jury. I've literally spent hours just coming up with my questions for a direct examination of a witness, but the time just flies. I'm sure I'd feel differently if real lives and real futures were on the line, but for now, when it's all just make-believe, I'd much rather prep trial than read cases and go to class.
The hardest part so far: Learning how to question witnesses without every question raising an objection, while also learning how to listen to opposing council's questions to know when I should be objecting. My nightmare scenario is that our entire case in chief gets destroyed by the other side's objections so that we leave the jury without a clue of our theory of the case. Competition is Saturday. Isn't going to class optional?
* I just saw my first episode of "Law and Order" a few weeks ago and was completely underwhelmed. Why do people like this show? The acting was flat and monotonous; every line was rattled off as if by rote in a mechanical, the-clock-is-ticking-here style. Plus, the plot was so completely predictable, why bother watching?
Posted 06:22 AM | Comments (4) | law school
Not Mincing Words
Last night in Wisconsin, in what may be the last presidential debate for several candidates (who knows?), Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich showed again why they're still in the race: They say a lot of what the other candidates are too afraid to say.
The following is the complete transcript of Sharpton's response to the question of whether Bush lied about the threat posed by Iraq, WMD, etc:
HOLT: I'd actually like to let Reverend Sharpton follow up on that very question. Do you think that the president knowingly lied, and if so, why?
SHARPTON: Well, first of all, I think that if he did[n't] know he was lying and was lying, that's even worse.
(LAUGHTER)
Clearly, he lied. Now if he is an unconscious liar, and doesn't realize when he's lying, then we're really in trouble.
(LAUGHTER)
Because, absolutely, it was a lie. They said they knew the weapons were there. He had members of the administration say they knew where the weapons were. So we're not just talking about something passing here. We're talking about 500 lives. We're talking about billions of dollars.
So I hope he knew he was lying, because if he didn't, and just went in some kind of crazy, psychological breakdown, then we are really in trouble.
Clearly, you know, I'm a minister. Why do people lie? Because they're liars. He lied in Florida he's lied several times. I believe he lied in Iraq.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: And Reverend, you'll recognize, obviously, calling someone a liar is a very serious charge. So it does lead to that question...
SHARPTON: I think he lied.
HOLT: So it does lead to the question: Why would he lie?
SHARPTON: Why do people lie? I mean, if in my judgment...
HOLT: I mean, knowing he would be in the position that you're putting him in now, why would he...
SHARPTON: Well, first of all, Lester, let us look at the facts. The facts are that what they presented to the United Nations, what they presented to the world was not so. You can only assume that they had to know if they said that they knew where the weapons were, that they knew they didn't know where they were.
And now to come back and tell us that Saddam Hussein is a cruel, despicable person, which we all agree, but we believed him when he told us he had them. Can you imagine me telling you that I believe somebody that you should never believe, and I brought 500 people to their deaths believing in a man that was as despicable as Hussein, and this is who we're going to have over the troops' lives in this country?
I think that this is absolutely outrageous. Why he lied? I think we should give him the rest of his retirement to figure that out and explain to us.
(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)
I realize there's a lot of controversy over Sharpton's relationship to Republican dirty-trickster, Roger Stone. It's possible that the kind of radical candor Sharpton displayed at last night's debate will work in Bush's favor by giving the GOP a way to paint the Dems as outrageous or unpatriotic or something, but I doubt it. Besides, Sharpton had a great response to the question of patriotism, as well, this one on the subject of the so-called "free trade" policies that destroy the environment and ignore workers' rights:
Preach on, Al, preach on.
Posted 09:23 AM | election 2004
Thanks Mr. Gross
Matthew Gross, "the first blogger-in-chief in presidential campaign history," has left the Dean campaign for family medical reasons. In an interview Gross said his experience with the Dean campaign hasn't made him more cynical, but more hopeful:
Hope dies last. (Gross offers many more thoughts on the Dean campaign on his own blog.)
Posted 08:36 AM | election 2004
Democrats Helped Bring Down Dean
Remember the Club for Growth? That's the anti-Dean "527" political organization that ran the tv ad in Iowa saying that Howard Dean should get his "latte-drinking, Volvo-driving," etc, etc, self back to liberal Vermont where it belongs. (More here on that ad.) That was the "Club's" second ad; the first compared Dean to Mondale and Dukakis as a tax-and-spend liberal.
Those ads probably didn't help Dean's campaign too much, but they were paid for by a self-confessed Republican organization, so they weren't all that surprising. The big question was: Why were the dirtiest anti-Dean attack ads paid for by Democrats?
That's right: According to this story on NPR, monied Democrats helped take down the Dean campaign. The so-called "Americans for Jobs, Healthcare, and Progressive Values," is another "527" group, and its anti-Dean ads were far worse than those funded by Dean's Republican opponents. One of the "Americans for Jobs" ads focused on Dean's gun control positions. But the worst was the one that tried to link Dean w/Osama bin Laden. The idea seemed to be: If you vote for Dean, Osama will get you! (Here's a Windows Media version of the attack ad.) Politics don't get much dirtier than that -- especially when a (hopefully) more subtle version of this line attack will be the main argument Bush uses to try to be reelected.
Which Democrats were funding these ads? On December 16, 2003, the Washington Post connected the dots between the ads and the money:
With us so far? Then continue: Leo Hindery, a cable television executive, is a national finance co-chair of the Gephardt campaign. Mr. Hindery is also a backer of AJHPV. The organization's chief fundraiser is a former Gephardt fundraiser, David Jones. Its president, Edward F. Feighan, a former Ohio congressman, has given the maximum $2,000 to the Gephardt campaign.
Is a picture beginning to emerge?
Did Gephardt or his campaign really have anything to do with AJHPV? We'll probably never know, and now that Geppy's out of the race, it doesn't matter all that much. Today a slightly more relevant question is: Did Kerry or his campaign have anything to do with AJHPV? Another perspective from last December:
That was December, and much has happened since then, none of which was good for the Dean campaign. Now we learn from AJHPV's recently-released records that a major donor to the group is also a prominent (and ethically-challenged) fundraiser for Kerry -- former U.S. Senator Robert Torricelli:
At the time, the group was suspected of having ties to Gephardt, the Missouri Democrat who was clashing with Dean for primacy in the caucuses. The group was run by a pair of past Gephardt supporters and had a spokesman who once worked for Kerry, but it refused to release its list of contributors. The group's executive director, David Jones, released the list Tuesday.
The Boston Globe story goes on to note that AJHPV also got money from Clark supporters, and also from at least one donor who had previously given the Dean campaign $2000. The suggestion seems to be that the group's donors supported all the candidates. That's ridiculous, considering that Torricelli gave $50k to AJHPV and is raising over $100k for Kerry, but whatever. The point is not to pin AJHPV's nastiness on Kerry or Gephardt or any other campaign, but to point out that:
1) Now that Kerry has taken over the "frontrunner" position, he isn't getting any of this kind of nasty treatment from fellow Democrats, and
2) Dean didn't lose "frontrunner" status because his campaign "imploded" or "self-destructed," he lost that status at least partly because his opponents assassinated his character and terrified voters.
Yes, I'm becoming bitter about the fact that Dean's campaign has come to this point. You can say I "blame the media" for what's happened, and you won't be wrong, but you won't be completely right, either. The media has a great deal to answer for when it comes to their coverage of the Dean campaign, but that will be for the historians to sort out. More important is why and how the DNC, the DLC and supposedly "Democratic" groups like AJHPV tried to stop Dean. And just as important and closely-related, why and how has the Dean campaign so far seemed unable to overcome or break through all of that resistance to reach the people it's been fighting for -- the voters? History will also judge all of that.
Meanwhile, the latest (and only) Zogby poll from Wisconsin shows Dean with double the support indicated by other polls. And regardless of what happens tomorrow in Wisconsin, we gotta do what we gotta do: Re-Defeat Bush.
Posted 08:03 AM | Comments (2) | election 2004
2000 All Over Again
Kerry won big in D.C. and Nevada yesterday:
Across the country, the full results in the D.C. caucuses showed Kerry with 47 percent; Sharpton, 20 percent; Dean, 17 percent; Edwards, 10 percent; and Kucinich, 3 percent.
Chalk up another big win for bandwagonism and so-called "electability." Walking over to the polling place yesterday I saw a few people with Kerry signs and buttons and I just wanted to ask them: What do you see in this guy that could make you want to carry a sign for him? How is this guy any better than Gore was in 2000? How is a Kerry/Bush matchup going to be any different from a Gore/Bush matchup?
[Tangent: You notice how "Gore/Bush" doesn't sound right? That's because you always hear "Bush/Gore" or "Bush v. Gore." Does it matter that everyone (the media) always puts Bush first?]
If there are any Kerry true-believers out there, perhaps you should be thanking Dean and Edwards for staying in the race. According to the New York Times, they're only helping Kerry build "momentum."
But whatever. If Kerry gets the nomination, I see this fall being much the same as the fall of 2000. Lots of Democrats will have to struggle to vote for Kerry because he's such a complete compromise. They'll do it (I hope) by reminding themselves over and over again of one simple truth: He's better than Bush. But will we ever get beyond having to choose the lesser of two evils?
And if you need another reason why Kerry is the Compromise Candidate, here you go: Rather than using Quicktime or Realplayer or even offering a choice, Kerry uses Windows media to stream video from his campaign. George Bush recently released an ad attacking Kerry -- an ad that's, not surprisingly, misleading. Kerry put out a decent response, but just like the Bush campaign video, you have to watch the Kerry campaign video via Windows media. So what? So it's just more evidence of the kind of inside-the-box, establishment, status-quo, follow-the-polls, everybody-else-does-it-that-way-so-I-will-too kind of politician Kerry is. So yeah, vote for Kerry, because, well, everyone else is doing it.
On the flip side, the Dean campaign and its supporters make video available via Quicktime (as well as Real and Windows media formats). That's different, better, more inclusive. But more important are the more substantive reasons why Dean is a better candidate, such as:
You want insincere platitudes and business as usual? Vote Kerry.
Note: I fully admit that if Dean were in Kerry's position right now, I wouldn't care too much that he was getting a large percentage of votes simply because people were playing empty-headed me-too politics. If that were the case, I'd maintain that it was ok, because Dean offered a real alternative to Bush and therefore all those bandwagon-jumpers would be helping to do something truly new and good for the country. I just hope there are Kerry supporters out there who sincerely believe that Kerry's not just the one getting the most votes, but that he's also the best candidate. I also hope Kerry will work to convince people like me that we're wrong. If he gets the nomination, I'll be ready and waiting to be convinced.
Posted 07:08 AM | Comments (1) | election 2004
