ACS Convention

The American Constitution Society begins its 2004 Convention today. I'll be taking the day off to attend a few of the sessions. It's funny: I was excited enough about this to pay the exorbitant registration fee six weeks or more ago (during finals, I think it was, or right after), but now that it's here, excitement is hard to come by. It's not exactly that I'm not interested in the topics on offer — I am; it's more that, after working for a while in the public defender's office I'm not crazy about sitting and listening to a bunch of lawyers talk about theoretical practice. On top of that, I'm kind of suspicious of the ACS. Is it the "new Democrats" of the legal field? Is it all about half measures and tiny tweaks to broken systems? Is its main selling point, "hey, at least we're not as bad as the Federalist Society"? (Much like Kerry's best selling point is "hey, at least I'm not as bad as Bush!") I don't know. That's what it seemed like from the limited contact I had with the GW chapter last year. Perhaps I'll get a better idea from this convention. Better run...

Posted 07:54 AM | Comments (2) | law general

Happy Bloomsday

Today is the day:

For millions of people, June 16 is an extraordinary day. On that day in 1904, Stephen Dedalus and Leopold Bloom each took their epic journeys through Dublin in James Joyce's Ulysses, the world's most highly acclaimed modern novel. “Bloomsday”, as it is now known, has become a tradition for Joyce enthusiasts all over the world.

If you'd like to be an "enthusiast," you can celebrate with a glass of burgundy and a Gorgonzola sandwich for lunch! (Yuck!)

I've never made it through Ulysses, although I've never tried. I guess I'm not an enthusiast. Perhaps someday when I have a lot more time.

Posted 05:15 AM | Comments (3) | ai books

Newdow Disinformation

Yesterday the Supreme Court decided Newdow —the case where Michael Newdow, a parent, attempted to challenge whether is constitutional for a school district to include the words "under God" in a daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Newdow's challenge was unacceptable—the court jumped on a technicality and decided not to decide the case. So why have I seen so many headlines that say things like, "Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge"? Technically, this is true; the Court did not say it was unconstitutional to keep the "under God" in the pledge. However—and this is what the headline elides—the court also did not say that the "under God" was constitutional. The court simply decided not to decide the case. And as the SCOTUSBlog points out, their inaction only begs the question:

Chief Justice Rehnquist accused the majority of manufacturing a new doctrine of standing-to-sue "in order to avoid reaching the merits of the constitutional claim." It is thus clear that some Justices will be eager to see a new test case, next year or the year after that, on the issue. This fact may well put new emphasis upon the Court's future as an issue in this year's presidential campaign. The legal status of "under God" is one of the most highly visible constitutional questions of the day, and many voters may be encouraged to believe that one or more newly appointed Justices will be in a position to decide the outcome when a new test reaches the Court next year or the year after that.

As the Court stands now, Scalia, Rhenquist, O'Connor, and Thomas have clearly stated they think "that it is constitutional for a school district to include the words "under God" in a daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance." Are there any court-watchers out there who know where the other Justices might stand? I added a request to the analysis over at L-Cubed for some feedback from those who know much more than me, but other thoughts are welcome.

An aside: How awesome is the SCOTUSBlog, anyway? Wouldn't it be great if Lexis, Westlaw, Findlaw, and other legal research tools started providing easy links to this sort of concise analysis of every Court decision?

See also: Yahoo full coverage of the decision.

Posted 05:35 AM | Comments (3) | law general

WIR #4: Back to Reality

The "retreat" was a crazy and refreshing time. I learned that "Jesus is the ultimate public defender" (um...!?!) and that practicing law does not prevent a person from also singing karaoke to Bon Jovi or doing "interpretive dances" to Journey. In all, a very enlightening and exhausting weekend. I feel like I need a vacation from my vacation.

This Week In Review was supposed to feature some thoughts on the interaction between prosecutors and defenders, the joys of 5th Amendment research (big lessons: police lie and the law rewards them for it; this Supreme Court thinks people are born knowing what it means to have the right to remain silent—see e.g. its decision in Alvarado), and perhaps something about the process of criminal appeals. However, that will have to wait for another day. How can Monday morning come so quickly?

Posted 05:49 AM | Comments (1) | 1L summer