Well, classes are over and I'm just one final away from being done my third and last year of law school. Other than that more looming test in July, which I get to start studying for soon enough, finishing that last class was rather anticlimactic.
I remember in undergrad, one of my senior seminar professors took us to the local bar after classes were done and bought us all a couple rounds of drinks. Then the school took the graduating class out for a night of drinking on the school's tab, which was also fun. Here, I wouldn't be surprised to get a phone call asking for money the day after graduation.
As most law students know, law school is much like high school, except that it's three years instead of four, and everyone can drink legally. The drama is probably more intense though, as are the stresses, but more people know what they want to do and there is less uncertainty about the future. You also have the opportunity to improve your golf game, so it's like an added bonus. Finals your third year are almost as important as they were your senior year in high school, which is to say, hardly at all. If you are on law review, your third year stays pretty busy until April or so; if you are not, the adage "third year they bore you to death" is certainly true since all I've been doing is playing video games and watching tv since I finished up my last article.
And, since it is a nice day out for once, I think I may just turn off this computer and study outside for this last final. And by study, I mean hit a round of golf.
Read more!
Sunday, April 29, 2007
3L almost over
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Supreme Court upholds Congressional power with abortion case
As the news has plastered it all over my computer screen, I cannot help but notice that the Supreme Court has issued its opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart. The case basically upheld a Federal law banning partial birth abortions. I have no opinion on the matter and make only general uninformed questions about the powers of Congress as explained below.
I haven't read through the 73-page slip opinion (and am impressed with how all of the presidential candidates have had time to read and digest it so quickly), but I am not surprised by the way the 5-4 decision fell. But, (and this is the only thing I will comment on), I am a little surprised at Thomas's and Scalia's concurrence (which I did read in full since it was very short). It starts at page 45 of the slip op. and reads in pertinent part:
"I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it."
Again, I haven't read Carhart, and will simply assume that the concurrence wouldn't have made that statement had the majority addressed that issue. Assuming they did not, then, I find this sentence to be a pretty interesting tell into the future of the abortion debate. It's not really about whether abortion is good or bad or the right of the mother or the government; it's about the Commerce Clause. Given the way Gonzales v. Raich fell (8-1), the question (to me) is whether the need to regulate abortions is "economic" under the Commerce Clause or is it a matter otherwise reserved for the states? The answer to this question in the future test case perhaps could resolve whether the Wickard/Raich line is the right one in this situation or is the Lopez/Morrison line more apt? Only time will tell.
Another interesting thing to think about is what would be the result if the Court determines that abortion regulation is outside of the federal government's power and thus it's up to the states to decide. If State A says it's okay and a bordering state (State B) says it's not, wouldn't this present a problem of disparate treatment for the rural poor of State A who would then have to travel to State B if they so chose? Would this trigger the negative commerce clause? Or does this paradox merely expose the need for federal government regulation in the first place? Or, even more radically, maybe this is the push the NOW needs to get the equal rights for women amendment passed, which would make this a much different constitutional issue, maybe. I'm not sure what the answer to any of these questions are, or even if they are in the right ballpark of the current abortion debate. In either case, I suspect that only further litigation will help flesh them out.
Or, as astutely pointed out in Raich, if you don't like the federal law, there exists an easy way to change it: "But perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic process, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress."
Monday, April 16, 2007
PMBR has suckered me in
I finally paid for PMBR; I couldn't hold off much longer without losing my ABA discount. Against my better judgment, I decided to do both the 6-day and the 3-day course, so all together, they got nearly a grand from me. Barbri is going to get another two grand from me when I pay for them (also very soon), so hopefully this will rack up enough points on my credit card to get a free trip to Aruba or England or somewhere fun in August. At least it will be reimbursed at some point in the future.
My primary reason for taking both of PMBR's courses despite the fact that I don't think I really need the 6-day: I have fallen prey to the illogical pitch that "For only another $500, you can feel all the better that you paid for everything so as to leave nothing to chance." In talking to my friends generally, though, I think the 3-day is plenty (and if you're disciplined, you probably don't even need that). Given that I don't really like hearing people lecture all that much, I basically just paid a chunk of change for 2700 multiple choice questions. I am NOT anxious to see how much that works out to per question once it's all said and done. My secondary reasons deal with OCD and sadism.
I did manage to get a hold of some of PMBR's early materials and suspect that the company employs a "bad cop, good cop" routine, particularly since I got almost half of the questions wrong, and some of their sample answers were explained using disputed Supreme Court cases. Assuming that's the case, then the latter questions will be easier. I recognize, however, that this logic is equally as faulty, but whatever. So long as I pass, I could care less. And afterwards, the National Board of Bar Examiners can do whatever they want to ensure that PMBR is in compliance with their injunction. Speaking of which, when will the class action suit start against PMBR? Sign me up for that.
Ebay shipping ripoffs
I'm thought I had blogged about this before, but perhaps not. Not much to say about ebay's shipping policies, but the fact that more and more users are gouging other ebay users by charging a ridiculously low price for an item and then jacking up the shipping costs to avoid ebay's already low commission fees. Now, obviously "handling" should cover (for most sellers), the cost of gas and materials to package and ship the item properly. Obviously popcorn and other shipping materials are not free, and neither is the time to ship off whatever is sold. But let's be realistic. Charging 3 or 4 times the shipping price is a bit excessive. So what is ebay's response to these bad business practices? Nothing.
Maybe ebay ought to start charging a higher percentage on shipping cost fees in order to deter the practice. They could charge no fee for shipping and handling charges under $10 or $12, then get into a graduated fee plan for larger fees, which can be waived or modified depending on the category (cars or other large appliances for example). That way someone buying a book, which should cost less than $5 to ship media mail, won't have to pay $30 in shipping.
Or, wait until the 89th day or so and then hammer them with a negative feedback and then hope they don't attempt to respond until the 91st day, in which case they may be too late.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Pelosi going to Iran? Now we're just getting ridiculous
Coincidentally in concurrence with my commentary this morning regarding her trip to Syria, Rep. Pelosi has now announced that she intends to travel to Iran in order to open a dialog with them. See Pelosi, Lantos may be interested in diplomatic trip to Iran. Because nothing has changed in the twelve or so hours since I posted my entry, I stand by my original assertion that her actions, as they have been described by online sources, constitute an unconstitutional overstepping of her authority as Speaker of the House. If President Bush had appointed her to his Cabinet as Secretary of State or something, that would be his prerogative to send her over there to discuss policy because that's the function of the executive. But since she is a member of the legislative branch, I am open to someone pointing out how this isn't a separation of powers violation. I know Gonzales has been feeling the heat from quickly written emails, but maybe it's time to regulate.
And in more interesting news, MySpace postings enjoy first amendment protections. I wonder how long before those limits are tested.
Pelosi and the Logan Act
In light of the recent criticism pervading the Internet with regard to the Washington Post’s coverage of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s recent trip to Syria, I thought I would chime in on a different aspect of this trip that another columnist (not surprisingly, also in the Washington Post) wrote. In Robert Turner’s opinion piece, Illegal Diplomacy, he suggests that Speaker Pelosi may have committed violations of her office under the Logan Act because she went to Syria in direct contravention of her boss’s (the President’s) orders.
Turner’s article appears to be well-written and articulate so I will simply comment on his article without doing any independent research. The way I look at it, it is the exclusive province of the executive branch to ensure that our country speaks in one voice. Because Syria is a country that has been categorized under the “axis of evil” umbrella and one the executive branch has made clear needs to be isolated in order for them to “see” the error of their ways, I cannot help but wonder what purpose Rep. Pelosi served by traveling there, even if it is a routine fact finding mission as she said it was. Fact finding missions are one thing generally because they are, with limits, within the realm of the legislative branch. On the other hand and more to the point, to engage in this mission after the White House expressly asked her not to seems to be an act of disobedience for which our country has laws against.
Particularly if she stepped on the executive’s toes by discussing policy or our strategy in the Middle East, as may be inferred from her own statements, her actions have the dangerous potential of having Syria (or the media) pick up on mixed signals or different voices of our government. Whatever the policy is, it needs to come from either the executive or an appointed official from the executive branch (such as a member of the Cabinet) than anyone else, not from the Speaker of the House. To me, her actions seem to be what the Logan Act protects against – that is, speaking to a foreign government “intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States.” Maybe this happens all the time and has never been really enforced in the two hundred years it’s been on the books. Then again, when else has such a high-profile non-executive gone on such a public mission?
Rep. Pelosi’s act could be a separation of powers violation in contravention of Article II. Since I am NOT a citizen of California, and Pelosi is NOT a member of the Cabinet or somewhere else in the executive branch, I fail to see how her trip can be truly representative of the people or how it is not a gross overstepping of her powers under the Constitution. If she doesn’t like the executive's policy, we have a system in place to change it. Self-help is not that system. Leaving aside the potential backlash and political consequences that could result for a moment, perhaps someone with standing will convince the Attorney General to do something about it. The Logan Act seems like a good place to start.
Monday, April 09, 2007
More firms bump to $35k and the Supreme Courtships pilot spoilers
Rumor on the clerkship mill is that the rest of the big firms have jumped to $35k to attempt to put themselves in the ballpark of S&C's $50k clerkship bonus. Now for the rest of the DC and NY market to match. Now, if only the firms would match the US Supreme Court clerk bonus of $200k and we'll be okay.
And speaking of Supreme Court clerks and their wacky adventures, I have stumbled across the working pilot for the Supreme Clerkships show, which premiers on June 1, 2007. A brief synopsis follows:
Supreme Courtships is about "the lives and loves of supreme court judges and their randy clerks." It takes place in real time, like 24, but it's October and not June. In the first episode, one of the clerks hits on (and possibly takes home) a lower court judge (or lawyer) in an Adams Morgan bar the night before his interview. This judge happens to be the cousin of the judge this clerk eventually starts clerking for, which this leads to complications by the fifth episode. Another of the clerks is ostracized from the rest of the group for making light of the "Bong Hits for Jesus" case and the "concept" of stare-decisis when she equates it to the theory of communism. Two of the clerks go on a group date with some friends from Georgetown, only to accidentally reveal some inside info to an eavesdropping reporter for the Post. Another clerk opens every episode with a joke about the LSAT and tries to dominate every conversation with how great his summer experience was at a big firm (coincidentally named Sumwell, Badden, and Godshawful). The divorce of one of the judges is finalized and he (or she) enlists the help of some of the more debutant clerks to "get back on the market." Uncomfortable hilarity ensues. Finally, as the end of the first day ends, the clerks create a drinking game relating to the number of pages printed from Westlaw in a given day.
If anyone else has insight into the first episode, feel free to add it via the comment feature.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Who really needs a request receipt?
Sitting in my email inbox today was an email from someone in the same workgroup as me. When I opened it, I got the popup window "Sender requests a return receipt. Send receipt or not." Usually I deny it, although every now and then I do just so maybe they will get a hint - why the heck do they care whether they need a return receipt? First, this is email. As e-discovery has begun to prove, email is worse than I initially thought. Almost so bad that I don't plan on using email once I'm in the real world, or at least will be very judicious about it. But that's beside the point.
I have concluded that these "request receipt" requests are bogus and indicative of insecurity. If the email is that important or you're so insecure about whether it is read or not, you should pick up the phone instead of emailing.
The second most annoying thing about email is when you're on some mailing list and then someone chimes in and writes back to the whole group "Please remove me from this mailing list." And then twenty people do the same thing. Now that is humor. But almost as annoying as the "request receipt" thing.
If only The Office would have another episode about email. Or an office birthday party. Either way, I'll settle for seeing how Jim and Pam will work out (and yet somehow i doubt it will be what we want...yet).
Tuesday, April 03, 2007
Nearing the end of the last semester
I was walking to the library the other day and I overheard a couple of first years talking about how they were starting to get con law. I'm sure I had similar thoughts (or at least until the grades came out) way back when, but all I could think of was how much longer I have to go before I can start studying for the bar and be done with school once and for all. Whoever said "third year they bore you to death" wasn't on law review since I have never been busier between that and working. Of course school wise, it's a joke at this point, so maybe that's what they are thinking.
I also was surprised (because I had forgotten) that Westlaw's points game ended at 50 questions rather than their traditional 75, so I was gypped of some of my points this semester (I don't even think they had any bonus questions this time around). One of my friends said they got an email from Westlaw that said they will credit you 200 some points for finishing early, so I guess that's coming. If I was a first year, I would view the possibility of getting an ipod from Westlaw as pretty remote, but I'm sure their game will be better next semester. Oh well.
At least I have a couple more weeks before I have to pay PMBR and Barbri their money.
Read more!
