This is just ridiculous: Gov. David Paterson unveils dire New York State budget that includes new taxes, layoffs and cuts. This is the sort of progressive taxing plan that operates to hurt those not making those hefty six figure salaries. Taxes are going up on everything related to entertainment, junk food, travel, clothes, gas, and everything else. This almost reminds me of the Simpson's Radioactive Man episode where Springfield taxed the movie company out of production, but just not as funny. I wonder how McDonalds and Coke are going to react to this one. Why not start putting a tax on people's weight and complete the circle.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Uncle Scrooge decides to put a tax on air
Sunday, December 14, 2008
A quick followup to the Dr Pepper and Chinese Democracy debacle
One additional post on this Dr Pepper deal that had good intentions but didn't quite have its intended effect (although given the publicity that was spawned as a result, I am inclined to think that the campaign was more successful than either camp lets on). The Entertainment & Media Law Blog reports that Dr Pepper has given a "fizzy" response. See Dr Pepper's Fizzy Response ot the 'Chinese Democracy' Shakeup. Their sentiments echo my own and similarly bring up Taco Bell, although they refer to another advertising campaign that led the parties down a much different legal path.
Speaking of chinese democracy, I did happen to catch the series finale to Boston Legal, which is the first episode I watched since last year when I axed it from my list. Having seen the US Supreme Court in action on more than one occasion, I think they took a lot of liberty with the decor (and I don't think they would have tolerated a lot of the nonsense, including speaking past the time), although the set was sort of similar.
Overall, I don't care what David E. Kelley is complaining about (see David E. Kelley Is Frustrated With Broadcast TV and David E. Kelley: ABC Shunned Boston Legal; "Satified" with Series Run): the show was axed (from both my list and ABC) not because it doesn't have some good dialog on occasion, but because it lacked in substance what it attempted to make up in character. While I'm not a fan of the serial storylines (although I still plan on watching Lost), they certainly can work if the story is compelling enough, and the series (for me anyway) became way too outrageous and disjointed for me to keep watching at all, let alone with any regularity.
Monday, December 08, 2008
More bailing out - but don't forget who is in charge of the country right now
I see that the Big 3 auto industry is on the verge of receiving a bailout. See Automaker Plan in Bush's Court. I'm not getting into the logistics of all of this, but merely point out two aspects of this that are troubling. First, although the "Big 3" auto players are in trouble, I fail to understand how their plight is such that they require government help when other auto manufacturers who also have plants in the US are not suffering. See generally The Becker-Posner Blog: Bail Out the Big Three Auto Producers? Not a Good Idea-Becker. Granted, they have a much bigger employment base, but still. How many dozens of businesses have went under or have declared bankruptcy and survived nonetheless.
Second, unlike the banking industry, the auto industry is a significantly more private enterprise. This sort of relates to the first point, but isn't the whole idea of the free market to have minimal government interference? Maybe with this bailout the government will be able to do something about the unions, or at least interfere to the same degree.
Hopefully the president shoots this down (or better, it fails to pass Congress) and the effect on the market is minimal.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Chinese Democracy, GNR, and Dr Pepper
Did you ever notice that Dr Pepper doesn't have the "." in Dr.? Besides this factoid, the long awaited promotion that the Dr Pepper soft drink company would give a free can of soda when Guns N' Roses would finally release their Chinese Democracy album has run into a bit of a snag. But what is funnier is that the band is up in arms about it. Obviously there are a lot of underlying issues, but it's a rather funny story of promotion gone wild. Will GNR succeed? Well, you know what they say about any publicity. See Guns N' Roses Lashes Out At Dr Pepper. Next up, rabies shots for the Easter bunny.
It's a good thing the Phillies let one get by them during the world series or else people may have been unjustly denied their delicious free taco and that would just be legally upsetting. Just like this.
Libel lawsuits continue
In another story about online gossip and those who get offended by it, I saw a headline that shows another person who has turned to the court system to stop the spread of internet libel. See Colorado Man Charged With Libel Over Craigslist Posts. I find this story particularly interesting in light of a recent comment posted in response to one of my former television stories. Personally, I don't find it offensive but rather funny given the unnecessary use of profanity. See Eli Stone Write-Up comment number 5.
I'm beginning to think there are more subtle differences to anonymity on the internet than the founders actually considered when they blessed the freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights. Will this turn into another evolving standard? If only suits like the Juicy Campus one would survive a little longer for some interesting legal commentary. See also The Great E-Barrier Reef. But then again, with cases like the Myspace suicide one filling the news, it's sufficient to say that the area of first amendment law and its intersection with the internet will continue to provide news for many years to come.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Why serving as your own lawyer is generally a bad idea
This headline jumped out at me yesterday: More Americans Serving As Their Own Lawyers. Basically, it implies that in the midwest and other parts of the country, people are deciding to represent themselves in certain disputes, such as over custody and divorce.
My friends would occasionally send me excerpts from transcripts on family court cases they had come across and as a clerk I came across a few pro se appeals on the criminal side in one way or another. I can say with absolute certainty that the adage "a person who represents herself has a fool for a client" is around for a reason. The law is tricky and, in the family law realm, very statutory. Why you would want to risk screwing it up by doing it yourself is beyond me. Maybe you enjoy wasting everyone's time. Criminal is another story, but even that is goofy nine times out of ten. Take the prosecutor's deal.
Now, obviously things cost money. Assuming you have to pay your rent, car insurance, food bills, whatever, you probably can scrimp and save up enough (or borrow for that matter) enough for some family law attorney to handle your case. Figure they will want some sort of retainer, and that is probably going to set you back $1000. And then figure it may still cost you more depending on many other factors they can explain to you, so you're going to have to have a budget and figure it out. Divorces, on the other hand, are probably much less complex, and if you are worried about how much a lawyer is going to cost in your divorce case, your case probably is less complex than you think and hence, less expensive. Call around and find a good rate.
So, like anything else you want or desire in this world, if you can't afford it, save your money and figure out a way for it to either become affordable or manageable. There are services (in most states) that may be able to represent you for free, although for this sort of thing, you're probably going to be out of pocket. But, think of it like this: If you're going to try and do this yourself and then screw up, it's going to cost you ten times as much as it would have cost you had you gotten a lawyer in the first place. Hire an attorney.
Read more!
Monday, November 24, 2008
24: Redemption thoughts
I did sit and watch the 24: Redemption preview yesterday. It was okay. I had heard that episode was supposed to be the start of last season (which got cut short) and they reworked it so they could essentially start over when the new season starts in January.
I wonder if they will just gloss over the subpoena stuff and "find out" that Jack Bauer was granted a presidential pardon as Powers Booth's final act as president. I kept waiting for them to show his name on a pardon list, but alas, I will have to wait to find out what happens next on January 11 (or in June so I can watch the entire show without commercials and through tivo).
So, if you like 24, you will be moderately disappointed by this episode, but it gives some hope if you plan on watching the next season.
Read more!
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
These pirates are making me thirsty...for some naval warfare
Here's a simple observation in light of these pirates attacking every boat on the other side of the atlantic. Cut your losses and sink their ships! They are on boats, which should be just as sinkable as the Titanic. The British have started to fight back; my lack of foreign policy experience doesn't provide me with any reason why we (or Russia, or whoever else) can't do the same. I can't imagine how pirates have somehow created a united naval presence rivaling us, Russia, or whoever else.
Read more!
Monday, November 17, 2008
Incredibly long days and another attempt at online dating
November is not even half over and I have already billed an inordinate number of hours this month. Who says a recession is bad for lawyers? Not I.
As a result of work, I must say that my social life has taken a bit of a nosedive, particularly because I wind up getting done work late and am often too tired to go out except on weekends. This is going to have to change, as this sort of non-stop work is sure to lead to an ulcer or other health related side effects which I don't need.
On a related note, I am going to give a shot at this online dating thing again. I figure being in a much larger city should give me a few more options. I'm not sure I'm going to go into as much detail as Law With Grace has done, but I think I can be general enough not to trigger anyone who may stumble across this blog. I purposely did not write anything about the previous dates I have been on during the clerkship, mainly because there was nothing out of the ordinary with any of them. None of them worked out for any long amount of time, plus with me moving away with no intention of staying didn't help for any long-term potential either.
Despite my previous disasters with Match.com, I think I'm going to give it one more shot, or at least something like it. At least now I don't have to explain what a clerk is, and my work schedule accommodates more casual post-work drinks. Plus it will give me something to write about since I feel compelled to bill anything legal-related. But the job is fun so far, don't get me wrong.
Anyway, so long as I stay away from those who describe their occupation as "designer of things" (which is a real one by the way), I have a good feeling about this time around. Then again, I'm not going to set the bar too high either.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Money found in walls and the legal battle that ensued
This article was all over the news yesterday and merits a brief discussion, if only for the humor of it. See Finding Cash in Walls, and Reaping Grief.
A contractor found $182,000 hidden in a wall of a house he was working on. Since that's a lot of money to hide from the government, he decided to do the right thing and tell the owner, with the expectation of getting the equivalent of a "finders keepers, losers weepers" fee.
The question becomes how do you split the value of this treasure trove? Well, like kids on a playground, they couldn't agree. Without knowing how this particular law works in Ohio, I read on with curiosity as to what happened next: the family of the original owner of the money found out about it, decided the upside of suing was worth more than the downside, and will wind up with a certain part of it.
Now, this is good for the descendants of said money hording original owner of the $182,000, but bad for the finder and the current owner. Because they could not agree on a number between 10 and 40 percent (owner offered 10, contractor wanted 40), they decided to get the law involved, tipped the press off to garner sympathy, and the family of the original person who hid the money decided that this money was really theirs. And the real winner of all of this? The lawyers.
Here's some free common sense advice: It will be much cheaper if you can figure out how to divvy up the money between the two finders. Granted, the contractor probably should have gotten not much more than 10 or 15 percent, but that could have easily been negotiated out. I think the article alludes to the fact he wound up with 13 percent or so. Either way, 10 or 15 percent of 200,000 is much more than the pittance they probably wound up with after fees and fighting this out in court since December 2007.
I also saw an interesting article about how the internet generation (or "Google generation," if you will) makes for a lousy jury, but haven't read it yet. It's about English law, so I'm not sure how well that translates over.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Obama wins and the sun still came up today
Well, the world didn't end. I think the breadth of Obama's win is going to be good for this country. For those who are disappointed, McCain's comments in his concession speech should be taken to heart:
"I urge all Americans . . . who supported me to join me in not just congratulating him, but offering our next president our good will and earnest effort to find ways to come together to find the necessary compromises to bridge our differences and help restore our prosperity, defend our security in a dangerous world, and leave our children and grandchildren a stronger, better country than we inherited.
Whatever our differences, we are fellow Americans. And please believe me when I say no association has ever meant more to me than that.
It is natural. It's natural, tonight, to feel some disappointment. But tomorrow, we must move beyond it and work together to get our country moving again."
I'm sure I will have some thoughts on all of this, but not at the moment.
Read more!
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Vote cast
Although I recognize generally the idea that voting is an irrational practice, I still did my civic duty this morning and cast my vote. Now I will sit and watch the returns come in and watch this three-ring circus finally come to an end. Read more!
Thursday, October 30, 2008
With less than a week to go before the election, is there any reason to believe any smear ad at this point?
The answer to the question posed by my post topic (With less than a week to go before the election, is there any reason to believe any smear ad at this point?), the answer is no. Like the bottom of the ninth or the late fourth quarter of a football game, the advertisements for both campaigns at this point are really just a hail mary to try and get through the campaign noise. While they may have some surface effect, in substance they are lacking.
If you can't decide at this point, you should just flip a coin. Of course, if you are that indecisive, I would imagine you are probably leaning toward the Democrat party, since they are really based on the government helping you out anyway.
This Alaskan senator Stevens story, however, needs a quick comment. Here is Sen. Stevens, at 84 years old, now convicted of concealing a quarter million dollars in gifts, still is running for reelection. Are the citizens of Alaska crazy for allowing this guy to continue? Or would they be crazy only if he got reelected. In either case, what a debacle and smear on this guy's legacy.
I am with the majority on this one that he should just resign. So what if his opponent wins the race by default. That's the Alaskan Republican party's fault for not running a viable candidate against him or in place of him when this corruption scandal erupted. I'll save the age card for another day.
What I find disturbing, however, is the split in executive authority over what this guy should do "for the good of the country." On one hand, and in a perfect world, I suppose, he would lose the election because the Alaskan people are outraged. Somehow, I think it more probable than not that he would win. And if he wins, and then resigns, obviously the governor (presumably Sarah Palin or her replacement if need be) would appoint someone and then have a special election afterwards.
At what cost would this be to the Alaskan people? Whatever the cost, it seems excessive given that they can avoid all of this by having him resign up front. For a party of "mavericks" or generally of reduced government spending, it seems like an awful waste of money to have this charade continue. Cf. John McCain calls for Ted Stevens to quit; Sarah Palin doesn't go quite that far with McCain, Palin call for Stevens to step aside. But, as a non-Alaskan citizen, what should I care for?
Monday, October 27, 2008
Concurring Opinions posts the Berg opinion
I haven't had time to read through it yet, and I will decide whether I need to chime in and post any thoughts that contribute to a more intelligent discourse later.
Rather than post the direct link to the PDF, I will simply post to the entry on the Concurring Opinions blog, which has the link to it: See Dave Hoffman, Berg v. Obama Opinion and Analysis. See also my earlier thoughts on this lawsuit (complete with comments ranging from the hilariously absurd to the otherwise well-reasoned).
I will note that in searching for this opinion, I came across at least one site (which I am not going to link) which appears to be generating money for the appeal to the Supreme Court. Now, I don't know whether or not this money is actually going anywhere or to anyone in particular (other than at least to the person soliciting the donations), so I'll simply reiterate what should be an obvious point.
Like anything else on the internet, I would be particularly leary about anybody or any site asking for money. For anyone who knows anything about law, I'll save you two cents: he can't appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court anyway before he spends a boatload on appealing to the 3rd Circuit. If you feel so inclined to give your hard earned money to something worthwhile, donate to the Library of Congress, the Peace Corp., or your local blood bank.
Read more!
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Little known news blip, but interesting nonetheless
I saw that the Obama-Berg lawsuit got dismissed and commented on that on that entry. This was an interesting news story that is likely to be overlooked: Charles Fried, a well-known conservative lawyer and con law professor, announced that he endorsed Obama. It's not as national an endorsement as Gen. Powell's, but it certainly has me thinking of how many other Republicans are starting to (or have already decided to) jump ship.
Read more!
Saturday, October 25, 2008
A point about red states & blue states
I was speaking with one of my friend's dad's over the weekend and he made a good point about this connotation about red states and blue states. His point was that not even 15 years ago, if you referred to something as "red" it was associated with Communism. His point was how quickly the world forgets. What is more disturbing, to me anyway, is that this concept of red v. blue has divided our country so much. I can only hope that whoever the next president is can start turning out economy around and bringing our country back together.
After all, there was a saying that used to be pretty popular, but seems to have lost a lot of its luster as of late: "United we stand, divided we fall."
Read more!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
This concept of billing time
Billing time reminds me of this quote from William Faulkner's The Sound and the Fury (book available here), which I last read in high school:
Time is dead as long as it is being clicked off by little wheels; only when the clock stops does time come to life.
So, there's a trade-off to everything.
Read more!
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
National polling data sites analyzed
Because I am a news junkee in some respects, but one who tries to find the middle ground in reporting through a series of balancing acts, I am always on the lookout for what could be correct or indicative polling data. For the past few weeks, I have focused much of my attention on the Real Clear Politics poll and Rasmussen's data. Apparently, my reliance on Real Clear Politics is a little misplaced.
Granted, this site has its own biases also, but I thought the post was worth reading. See FiveThirtyEight: Real Credibility Problems (discussing the inclusion and exclusion of certain polling data from the RCP poll) and his follow-up post, RCP Follow-Up. He also pointed me to this Pollster.com polling site, which seems to say what every other poll is saying: the Republican ship is sinking, and this election is not going to turn on one state.
Whether or not any of these polls have any prescient accuracy remains to be seen, but the point, as always, is to look at these things with a grain of salt and a skeptic eye. My prediction remains rather general: Voter turnout will be through the roof, and none of these polls are going to get it exactly right.
This election is going to be over with in a couple of weeks. Whether poll A or B or C puts Obama ahead or behind, or McCain ahead or behind in other states is irrelevant. All of this voter fraud nonsense is the same swan song that is played during every election. See also An Analysis of Voter Fraud in the United States. The system is not perfect. But it's the system we've got and that's the way it is.
The bottom line is that all of these polls have significant margins of error and none purport to give what is required to be scientifically statistically accurate. This has more to do with cost efficiencies more than anything else, and in the end it's just a conversation piece that adds fuel to the fire of 24/7 media, a recurring problem I have discussed many times over the past few months.
I will be curious to see whether my own prediction is going to come true - so far it seems on track, although I certainly miscalculated the breadth and success of Obama's 50-state strategy. We'll see how exactly it plays out in two weeks, and obviously it is going to impact future elections regardless of who wins.
No real point to this entry, just thought the article regarding the RCP polling information was interesting. Why can't all of these polling sites simply disclose their information? I'm more interested in how much money these sort of businesses actually make, but I can't seem to find that anywhere.
Read more!
Monday, October 20, 2008
Why is it so unamerican to have negotiated a good contract for yourself?
What I would really like to write about is Gen. Powell's endorsement of Sen. Obama and why his comments lay out, quite intelligently, at least three specific reasons why his support, despite being a Republican, is behind the distinguished gentleman from Illinois. I would suggest that if you did not see the interview, the transcript speaks for itself.
I do want to mention, briefly, that despite my best intentions, I am still watching, even as I speak, some of cable news. The problem with these talk shows, which purport themselves as news shows, is that they are not: they are opinion commentary shows; there is a significant difference. Whether the general watcher realizes this or not is irrelevant. So long as everyone watching understands that each guest is carefully selected to endorse or rebut the point the show is trying to make, the perception should not be influenced beyond what it would be from one's own decision-making process. What disturbs me is that I doubt this sort of thought-process takes place. I have no solution to this problem at this time. Regardless...
But what prompts this quick reaction and the title of this entry stems from seeing the recent (and continuous) negative news reaction about CEO compensation. From a legal perspective, what rights does a non-stockholder have over what a private entity and its stockholders decides to pay its CEO? Not very much. See, e.g., Bailout's Bid to Limit Executive Pay will be Tough to Realize. Regardless of how far their golden parachute opens, these CEO's are going to come out on top one way or another. See, e.g., BoA Gives Top Job to Merrill Lynch CEO in the Merged Entity.
My limited point is why does it matter that these CEOs are making a lot of money? For the headache they have to go through in running a company, I'm sure a lot of that money is incentive to serve in the first place. Nobody seems to be complaining about how much money these news outlet CEOs and other industry CEOs are making in comparison.
People seem to be mad whenever they hear about how someone else is doing really well. It's rather absurd, actually. Didn't the Yankees pay A-rod about a quarter of a billion dollars to come in and turn the team around? I haven't seen them win a world series since he's been on the team. Should we renegotiate his contract and take away what has already been promised to him? Absolutely not. Should it impact how future contracts are negotiated? Perhaps. But notwithstanding this example, can't people be happy for someone when they are successful? Of course, all of this is facetious.
This is sort of getting circular and I haven't given it any significant amount of thought, but it just infuriates me when I see someone (particularly on cable news) bitch and complain about some ex-or current bank CEO or whoever who has been paid their contract. There are certainly ways, legally, to curb excessive pay, and if the stockholders want to do something about it, they certainly can. Why make this a news issue? It's not news. It's business.
And what exactly is a pro-America area of this country? And where are the anti-American areas? I can't wait until this election is over so the media will finally have something better to report about.
Read more!
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Two funny internet videos
I rarely post links to videos, but these two were particularly funny. I'm not sure how long either of them will be available, but I'm sure they will make their way onto YouTube or something like that. The first is one of a wedding where the best man trips and knocks the bride into a pool. See Worst Best Man Ever. The other, assuming you are a fan of Triumph the Insult Dog, is Triumph's coverage of the third presidential debate. See Triumph in the Presidential Debate Spin Room (10/16/08 "Decision 2008" if that link redirects).
The best line is "Even Joe the Plumber couldn't unclog the crap coming out of their mouths." And "Phillies 2, Dodgers nothing, Joe the Plumber 13."
Read more!
Posted by ECL at 1:27 PM 2 comments
Labels: conan, election 2008, joe the plumber, triumph the insult dog
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Is Joe the Plumber going to become the catalyst symbol of the average joe? I don't think so
Just a quick thought on this Joe the Plumber story and I will be more consistent in tying legal thoughts to some of these rather juicy legal news bits as of late.
When I heard the Joe the Plumber story break, I thought Obama's choice of phrasing was a little off. People love throwing around "socialism" and "communism" and "robin hood" without really understanding the concepts, so I am giving him a pass on this one.
The concept of fairness and this so-called wealth distribution, in some respects, is quite misleading with those terms. It isn't so much the question of why the richest should pay more taxes, it's a question of why should the richest only pay the social security tax only up to a certain point. Isn't it everyone's burden? I appreciate the idea of social security being more of a flat tax than some sort of regressive tax, and I also appreciate, from a financially greedy perspective, having it cut-off at some point. But if Obama wants to move up the cut-off point for the social security tax to double what it is now as an effort to balance the social security budget, so be it. Now, moving that number up will obviously affect all businesses, so maybe there needs to be some further tweaking, but that can be given in the form of other tax breaks and incentives. I don't know enough about it to speak more about it than this at this point. Now with regular income taxes, that's another story for another time. Flat tax = semi bad.
But not with social security did this phraseology capture the media's attention, but only in the limited respect with a presumed small business owner's concern with why should his taxes be raised because his business is doing better than someone else's. Certainly it's a fair question, and the answer, I agree, was worded quite poorly. Had Obama said, it's to help pay in part programs like this $700 billion+ bailout plan, that may have been more realistic. He just needs a stock response that doesn't sound too distant or political. Regardless...
The fact that it came up in the debate, multiple times, in the way that it came up, was surprising. I can understand McCain attempting to turn "Joe the Plumber" into some sort of icon to turn the larger conversation to tax policy and perspective. The problem with doing this is that you have to make sure your icon actually stands for what you are purporting him to be. I remember thinking as the debate was going on that it would be funny if Joe the Plumber wasn't even a plumber. And, as it turns out, I was semi-right. At least the 24/7 media had something new to report about.
According to the USA Today article, and about every other valid article written on the subject, Joe the Plumber turns out to not be the sad story he purports to be. In many respects, it is totally irrelevant that he isn't really a plumber, but aspires to be one, has not completed his Ohio apprenticeship to be licensed, and has a lien on his house for failing to pay state income taxes. It's no wonder Joe the Plumber doesn't want the government to get involved with the average Joe (or him), he owes them money!
So maybe Joe isn't the best representative of the average Joe or small business owner. Maybe, in some respects, his thoughts are indicative of a greater concern with paying higher taxes. But it's conjecture and speculation. Further, it doesn't even effect him since his taxes will remain the same under either candidate. I appreciate the concern, but the fact he was trying to speak on behalf of a constituency he was not part of merely demonstrates that the media (and this time, the RNC) picked the wrong horse to hang their hat on. Had they done a minimum amount of research before giving their candidate a green light to use him to attempt to martyr the other side's tax plan, the debaters certainly would not have spent as much time as they did glorifying this guy, who turns out to be a tax evader.
So, was Joe the plumber the real winner? If by the fact you mean that the government of the State of Ohio will get their money, then yes. He's certainly getting his 15 minutes of fame, whether he likes it or not. But he shouldn't blame anyone on this unwanted spotlight other than the media (in part) and McCain, for bringing it up in the debate the way he did.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Some thoughts on big government
For a quick jump at humor, I note that I still am getting humorous comments to my thoughts on this Obama citizenship lawsuit. Today's thoughts, however, turn back to the economy for a moment.
Last week the Congress passed, and the President signed into law a massive "bailout" (or "rescue", depending on how you spin it) plan to save the planet, or economy, if you will. At this point, the problem has become self-perpetuating, and the governments of the world, all of them really, are being forced to react. Whether this is good or bad is beside the question; it's going to happen and the free market is going to have to respond. So far, it doesn't seem to like it very much, or, at the very least, the housing bubble burst a little bigger than anyone thought it was going to. But hey, I'm not an economist, so what do I know.
What I do know is that McCain's suggestion that the government should now buy up people's bad mortgages and allow people to keep their homes is fiscally irresponsible, for several reasons, of which I will explain only one. The question at the town hall meeting was: With the economy on the downturn and retired and older citizens and workers losing their incomes, what's the fastest, most positive solution to bail these people out of the economic ruin?
First, Obama's answer was not very good. So what? It was good enough to show that he has at least given some thought on the issue, and more importantly, McCain's answer was far worse. And if that's McCain's stance on this issue, he deserves to lose. I'll be curious as to whether the exit polls next month have people voting for Obama, not so much for him, but simply against McCain.
The bottom line is that the economy has no realistic chance of recovering over the next 30 days, which essentially means that Obama will win this election. Personally, I think this may be a good thing for the country overall, but I will have to wait to see how good or bad the economy is four years from now before making a final decision on the merits. I rarely use this type of language, but McCain's answer is SCARY. Meaning, it is scary for everybody who makes or wants to make money (that is, everyone). At this point, my time to sit on the fence of this issue is over. Obama will get my vote. (Not that mine will make a difference in the electoral scheme of things).
Here is McCain's scary response, in full:
"Americans are angry, they're upset, and they're a little fearful. It's our job to fix the problem.
Now, I have a plan to fix this problem and it has got to do with energy independence. We've got to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't want us very -- like us very much. We have to keep Americans' taxes low. All Americans' taxes low. Let's not raise taxes on anybody today.
We obviously have to stop this spending spree that's going on in Washington. Do you know that we've laid a $10 trillion debt on these young Americans who are here with us tonight, $500 billion of it we owe to China?
We've got to have a package of reforms and it has got to lead to reform prosperity and peace in the world. And I think that this problem has become so severe, as you know, that we're going to have to do something about home values.
You know that home values of retirees continues to decline and people are no longer able to afford their mortgage payments. As president of the United States, Alan, I would order the secretary of the treasury to immediately buy up the bad home loan mortgages in America and renegotiate at the new value of those homes -- at the diminished value of those homes and let people be able to make those -- be able to make those payments and stay in their homes.
Is it expensive? Yes. But we all know, my friends, until we stabilize home values in America, we're never going to start turning around and creating jobs and fixing our economy. And we've got to give some trust and confidence back to America.
I know how the do that, my friends. And it's my proposal, it's not Sen. Obama's proposal, it's not President Bush's proposal. But I know how to get America working again, restore our economy and take care of working Americans. Thank you."
What scares me about this response is the level of government involvement it implies. Government can renegotiate private contracts? What is this, communist China? And where was this idea last week when the Senate was forcing their rescue bill into the House's tied hands? What is scary is that McCain seems to have abandoned all principle and reason to score a political point. This is not good judgment. And I have convinced myself, after living through Clinton's sexual revolution debacles and this Iraq war that still seems to be me based on the premise that the end justifies the means, that we need a leader with good judgment.
What scares me more is the fiscal price tag to such a proposal. Now, this wouldn't be scary too much, except for McCain's other comments that he doesn't want to raise taxes. On that issue, in addition to the italicized portion above, McCain added this insight into his economic prowess:
"So let's not raise anybody's taxes, my friends, and make it be very clear to you I am not in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy. I am in favor of leaving the tax rates alone and reducing the tax burden on middle-income Americans by doubling your tax exemption for every child from $3,500 to $7,000.
To giving every American a $5,000 refundable tax credit and go out and get the health insurance you want rather than mandates and fines for small businesses, as Sen. Obama's plan calls for. And let's create jobs and let's get our economy going again. And let's not raise anybody's taxes."
These positions are irreconcilable. He says to freeze government spending, save defense, Veterans' Affairs, and "some other vital programs", which is Washington wishy washy nonsense for "everything else." At least Obama tells you that taxes are going up for some people, and in reality, for everyone. The government, and the country, cannot function without everyone sacrificing a little bit. Because of the nature of this particular crisis, that sacrifice will have to come from the wallet.
Now, I agree that there are probably a lot of wasteful programs that could be cut and eliminated completely and that may save the deficit a bit. Similarly, if the IRS went after everyone who didn't pay their legal share of taxes, we probably wouldn't be in debt at all. The problem with both candidates is that they are in favor of big government and government rescuing the ordinary people. The last I checked, most everyone is capable of handling these problems with only minimal assistance, be it from their parents or whoever.
The next four years is going to be bad for us all economically. I would hate to throw another terrorist attack or war into the mix and see how that would drag us down further. The leadership our country needs, however, isn't with a bunch of pipe dreams and mud slinging over who voted for what when and why. It's all about the economy and how we can start fixing it. McCain's plan is economically unworkable, even from a liberal Democratic standard. In fact, it's so liberal, I'm surprised the core of his party aren't rolling over in their graves.
When both candidates propose massive government spending and support the type of government interference that is, admittedly, probably necessary at this point, I am unable to distinguish which one is the Republican candidate and which is the Democrat. The fact that the Republican is advocating for the same principles that his party is rooted against only continues to reiterate my belief that we are not a two party system. And if both candidates are really just spinning the same side of one coin to try and get it to land closer to them, I think this really comes down to whose economic plan and persona will better lead our country out of these financial doldrums and back into some sort of good graces. Unfortunately for us Republicans out there, or at least those who somewhat identify more with the principles of that party, this isn't going to be our year.
But, I am more than willing to read or discuss the reasons why or why I am not right or wrong. Next time, if I remember (or when I get back from this next upcoming trip across the country), I will write a commentary regarding why students who are borrowing money better hit the books if they want to get a good loan rate. I know that if I were a lender right now, I would be renegotiating my future interest rates to be dependent on the average graduate income from that school. Business-wise, it makes great sense. Of course, if you're a slacker, you better change those habits quick.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Things for a clerk to negotiate when weighing their post-clerkship options
Obviously there are a lot of things to consider after you have your post-clerkship job lined up, but here are two to give serious thought to: start date and payment of the clerkship bonus (if any).
Most of the clerks I know were able to get a start date sometime 4-6-8 weeks after the end of the clerkship and probably 3/4 were able to get their clerkship bonus either in full or in part upon completion of their clerkship. The latter is good if you are planning to take some time off (highly recommended by the way) in between the clerkship and the new job. Obviously these are outliers; we all know some firms don't pay a clerkship bonus, or pay their bonus after the first year of working; other firms want you to start right away, and you may want to start right away. In general, however, these two things seemed pretty easy to negotiate, and I would be willing to bet that most firms are more than willing to work with you to ensure you are rested and ready to go by the time you start.
Also, don't forget to factor in the time it takes to move - it's a much bigger pain in the ass then you may initially think. Add another week after you plan on moving in case you aren't sure.
And for those starting off clerking (or have already started), now is the time to start looking for that post-clerkship job (assuming you aren't looking for a second (or third) clerkship. In a lot of ways, you are on the same schedule as a third year law student, and competing against them just the same (with obvious benefits - bar passage (when it comes), clerkship, general coolness, etc.).
Friday, October 03, 2008
The VP Debate, or why the cable media is continuing to distort common perceptions
I watched the debate with some moderate interest last night, not because it was a debate between the vice presidential candidates, but because it was the first and only live uninterrupted and unedited coverage of the choices the candidates had made. After the first twenty minutes of the debate, it became clear (to me anyway) that the Democrats have the stronger ticket by far.
It's not that Sarah Palin did a bad job, I would agree with the general perception that she exceeded expectations. But the fact that the McCain campaign (or more likely, the left and right media) had driven the public's perception of her to the point that expectations were low continues to baffle me. Setting strategy aside, I looked at it from a legal perspective, as if both were testifying and the moderator was the examiner.
At least in the beginning and for the most part, Biden answered each question pointedly and with specific examples, as one would expect a lawyer to do. Palin, on the other hand, either did not answer the question, would answer a totally different question on what seemed to be a rehearsed topic, and could not refute any of the points (right or wrong, I don't know), that Biden was making. Certainly when it came to foreign policy and the governments in the middle east (and admittedly, I know very little on this area), it seemed that Biden had a firm understanding of what was going on and Palin seemed to ramble.
But more than that, Palin's responses were substantively empty or nonresponsive. Even my non-lawyer friends would agree with that. Without at least a firm understanding of her candidate's policies (or the party's), I was left with the distinct feeling that confirmed my initial suspicions that Palin was picked not for her political prowess, but for mere political reasons. And if that is indeed why she was picked, then the Republican party deserves to lose. But with both McCain and Obama in favor of big government and bailing out private businesses from the mistakes of their executives and clients, I'm not sure whether there really is a republican party even still in existence. Whatever emerges from this mess and unification of the two party system, if anything, would only be in its conceptual stages at this point, and I need not speculate on it further at this time.
This race has never been about Republicans or Democrats; it's about the direction of this country and whether we should continue down the same path for another four or eight years. Because the Republicans are in power, this is an incredible hill to climb. I remain convinced that Obama will win the election, in part because of his charisma, but more so because he is drawing different numbers and demographics (the college-age, mostly) than any previous Democratic contender. See generally my March thoughts on the electoral map. His choice of Biden semi-cuts against this message, but less so than any other candidate, and it was clear after watching the debate that Biden was the superior choice in the matter. I'm sure at some point McCain wondered about his choice regarding a McCain-Kerry ticket, as did many others in fact, but that bridge certainly went nowhere fast.
Anyway, as a "juror" on the vp debate jury, I think Biden made his case for his guy and Palin did not make hers for hers. That's all it was about. But in watching some of the cable shows yesterday, I have to make one additional comment on this process before I begin to think about how I am going to continue to follow this political process.
I have decided that, notwithstanding my previous six months or so of following cable news, it's time to stop watching it. For example, I have liked the O'Reilly Factor and have tried to watch the first segment when I can. For the most part, I believe that O'Reilly is probably the least biased of all the nightly cable news people, although he certainly is to the right of the neutral mid-line. Is he a good reporter though? I don't think so, especially after watching last night's rant against Rep. Frank. See video and discussion here, or here. Assuming reporters are supposed to get to their point quickly and efficiently, as soon as I heard O'Reilly tell the interviewee "that is bs, blah blah blah" my ears turned off. I know that I was taught that if I was cross-examining someone and lost my cool, I would lose the case. Certainly that happened for my opinion of O'Reilly and my constant defending of his show after that interview.
So that there is no dispute over my position on the cable news media, I have developed a continuum for the left to right bias: Far right (Hannity of Hannity and Colmes) - Mid right (O'Reilly) - Mid (David Gergen, CNN political commentator) - Left (Chris Matthews, Hardball), Far left (Keith Olbermann of Countdown). Sometimes I will watch Hannity to offset Keith Olbermann, but I really can't watch either for very long. I balance O'Reilly with Anderson Cooper. I heard morning Joe is good, but haven't seen it; I rarely watch Lou Dobbs but he's sort of between O'Reilly and the middle; the new Rachel Maddow show I haven't watched nor plan to, and Glenn Beck, after reading his book, may be further right than all of them.
After watching some of the quick political spin immediately after the debate, I have concluded that the cable news media is the core reason behind the perpetuation of a nationwide desire for 24/7 news. See generally my earlier thoughts on the media's distain for economic success. I did flip over to ABC, CBS, and NBC briefly after the debate and they seemed much calm about speculating on who won and who lost, so maybe I should just stick to the evening news and be done with it. Whatever I decide, I am going to make a conscious effort, and like television (save the Office and Lost, and a couple of other shows), I am simply going to turn it off. After spending three years in law school and another year clerking, the last thing I need is for some doofy television personality to tell me how I should interpret something I just saw. And since I suspect most of the general public has the same dislike of patronage, I am willing to bet that once the discussion over the vice presidential debate calms down (likely today), the rest of the country will shift its focus back on the major issues, particularly the pending recession.
The more interesting point, and I suppose this will have to wait for four years, is how the next president will be able to deliver on the promise for change without stalling out the economy. I predict a massive overhauling of the tax code to start. The current tax code became outdated about ten years ago.
Read more!
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Is the media being too hard on Palin? Or being less hard on McCain?
Certainly, this debate is going to be heavily scrutinized and spun in ten different directions for the next few days, if not the next month. Setting aside any worthless speculation on that issue, I think I have figured out at least one underlying reason why Gov. Palin has been such a draw to the media (other than the sheer novelty of her selection). Notwithstanding who may have started the phrase, the idea that Gov. Palin is "one heartbeat away" from being president distinguishes her from every other vice presidential candidate. But is it that her selection draws unnecessary emphasis on McCain's age or does it take attention away from McCain himself? I suggest that it's the latter. Whether this strategy is good or bad remains to be seen.
On the one hand, there is all this nonsense talk about the need for experience to be vice president and everybody (that is, everybody except those who have actually been president or v.p.) thinks they know what it takes to be president (or vice president). I say forget about this actual experience question all together. Experience is important, for sure, but as I've said all along, success lies in the decision making process. We need to stop being so results-oriented, particularly since economic change takes at least a decade, if not two. I'm not sure how to begin to tackle that nationwide mentality, though, and it is being exacerbated by the media, so what can any one person really do?
My point to all of this is that it seems that Gov. Palin has shifted everyone's focus from the actual presidential race, or she has minimally changed it to be a referendum on Palin's experience v. Obama's experience. This change is silly: the race isn't Palin v. Obama; however, it's McCain v. Obama. I have stopped being amazed at how everyone on the news seems to have forgotten that. Maybe another thousand point drop on the market will do so. Of course, with both McCain and Obama in favor of big government, maybe the focus should be on the vice presidents, just not to the snippy degree at which they are currently.
A good example of the unfocused attention Gov. Palin is getting is with the Supreme Court case question that Katie Couric threw out at her the other day. While a lawyer is probably aware of any of a dozen or more headliner United States Supreme Court cases in the last century or two (including the most recent second amendment case), the lack of being able to answer this jeopardy question should not be held against Gov. Palin.
To the best of my knowledge, she has had no legal education. If you were to ask someone running for some state office the same question, I'm sure Roe v. Wade would be in the top 3 or 5 cases that would be answered. McCain, who is actually running for president, certainly would have been able to rattle off a couple of cases and nobody would have stirred at the question. Which brings me back to my point.
Is the media being less critical of McCain as a result of Palin? And more importantly, is this shift in focus good or bad for the country? I'll have to give this some thought as the two vice presidential candidates spar it out. Maybe the candidates will be asked something important, such as how their candidate plans on preventing the next banking collapse, or why exactly this affects "joe six pack," who probably has no idea about how those mavericks on Wall Street are impacting their retirement lifestyle.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
A little jetlagged, and financially stable...for now
Luckily for me (and most other recent law school graduates), my debt far outweighs whatever losses I may or may not have taken in the stock market's latest see-saw (or dead cat) bouncing. Anyone who graduated from professional school in the last three years will likely still be working in a decade, so it's not going to be too bad in the long run (fingers crossed). Anyway, I'm still sifting through about two weeks of news, and I want to come up with a response to this interview where Gov. Palin rambled on for about five minutes about nothing, but I'll just put some links to some of the more interesting articles from today and leave the reader to judge them for him or herself.
Harvard professor Jeffrey A. Miron agrees with my suggestion that the bankruptcy laws may be equally as good as a rushed bailout plan. See Jeffrey A. Milon, Bankruptcy, Not Bailout, is the Right Answer. His commentary is much more detailed than either of my quick thoughts on this issue (new deal, quick thoughts).
I still have not made up my mind completely about Gov. Palin. While my initial concerns have still not been alleviated, I can't say I've been entirely reassured that McCain made the best selection either. In an article posted today, Fareed Zakaria, a Harvard and Yale educated expert on government and foreign affairs followed up on an earlier written piece, both of which echo some of my own concerns. See McCain's VP decision is 'fundamentally irresponsible'; Palin is Read? Please.
I find it fascinating on the spins that are coming out of both camps regarding Gov. Palin and her upcoming debate with Sen. Biden. Regardless, this sort of response to what one would anticipate would have a very canned or rehearsed should send a red flag up to anyone who has ever been put on the spot in class and was just saying whatever stream of thought sounded best. I must copy this transcript, and if I find one comparing a black-line to the SNL skit, maybe I'll put it up as well. While I find Gov. Palin's clarification on why the proximity of Alaska to Russia counts for foreign policy experience slightly disturbing, I find this response much more so, given the uncertainty of the financial markets as of late:
COURIC: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend $700 billion helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas and groceries; allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy instead of helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
PALIN: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, were ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health-care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy, helping the—it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health-care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions and tax relief for Americans. And trade, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as a competitive, scary thing. But one in five jobs being created in the trade sector today, we've got to look at that as more opportunity. All those things under the umbrella of job creation. This bailout is a part of that.
And finally, all this nonsense about free speech lately. See, e.g., Report on Obama's 'Truth Squad' Stirring Up Controversy. I attempted to sift through about ten pages of worthless websites to find some sort of neutral reporting on this issue, and came up empty, other than finding that John McCain also has a truth squad. See, e.g., McCain 'Truth Squad' Hits Back at Clark, Obama; McCain Campaign Deploys 'Palin Truth Squad.'
I'm not sure whether the general public understands the contours of free speech other than they think its an unfettered right. It is not. As pointed out on the Volokh Conspiracy site, it's difficult to find any substantive information on exactly what has happened, and I'm inclined to believe the whole thing is blown out of proportion by the the uninformed public and self-perpetuating misinformation. Either way, I'm not going to following this particular story beyond the occasional click.
Enough for now. I think I'm going to start house hunting and enjoy what little time off I still have left.
Read more!
Monday, September 29, 2008
A quick point from an airplane terminal regarding this bailout plan
I only have a few minutes between flights, and I must admit that I could not have picked a worse week to stop watching the news for the last of my pre-work vacations, but I am torn between whether this bailout plan passing or not passing is a good thing. I'm going to think more about it on my flight and try and come up with an intelligent point when I return to the east coast in a day or two.
Seven quick thoughts on today's crash and comedy of errors.
1. The fast-paced nature of a huge government bailout bill. With the business world still reeling from Sarbanes-Oxley, I am not totally surprised that a small core of Congress is hesitant to wade deeper into the water of government-sponsored bailout and federalization of private enterprise. Should the government get involved? Should it not get involved? Another way to put this is should we have a small government or a big one? This is the core of federalism/anti-federalism and what I thought was the fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. See point 2.
2. The Republican and Democratic (two-) party system is broken. I will not be at all surprised by this if a third, or even a fourth party forms from the two factions of both parties. We need some member of Congress (probably a Senator moreso than a Republican) or some governor to step up nationally, step up and lead, and just do something substantive. Isn't this sort of national crisis how the Republican party formed in the first place? I'm not perfect on my history, and I would think that this sort of change will take a few years, but perhaps this financial breakdown is the jolt that is needed for someone to make a real difference as a public servant. So that my viewpoint is clear, the Green, Libertarian, Independent, Donald Duck, or whatever other parties are currently in existent are not it.
3. Is it really the failure to pass this bailout plan the route of the problem or is it simply exposing the flaws in the financial lending system? The house of cards seems to be collapsing. How long did people really think a lender could loan millions of dollars nationally to people with bad credit before getting burned?
4. This stock market meltdown, whether it was inevitable or catalyzed by what I am tentatively categorizing as a vote of "no-confidence" in the government, will have serious effects on the general public, like it or not. What is going to happen when grocery stores start charging (as some gas stations do) excess fees for credit card usage? While New York and apparently nine other states prevent this practice, these sort of laws hurt businesses, or, alternatively, simply operate to drive up prices directly rather than indirectly.
5. Did twelve Republican senators really vote "nay" out of spite? See Lawmakers quickly point fingers after bailout fails; Lawmakers blame partisanship for failed house bill; Republicans accuse speaker of shattering fragile bail-out deal. Seriously?
I'm not a fan of government bailout when we have a perfectly good bankruptcy system in place, but when the crisis has reached a fever pitch, I would hope that the vote against such a massive government project has a good reason, and not simply, as Rep. Boehner is quoted as saying, "I do believe we could have got there today, had it not been for this partisan speech that the Speaker gave on the floor of the House" (see also Rep. Cantor: "There is a reason that this vote failed - and that is Speaker Pelosi's speech"). One word to this: RIDICULOUS.
If this bill, for better or worse, failed because of a doofy speech by the House speaker, then our government is more broken than I thought. See again Point 2.
6. I just hope that once I land my 401(k) hasn't turned into a 201(k) (with credit to some guy I heard make this identical joke to one of his friends at the airport bar a little while ago).
7. Hopefully the airline in my connecting city doesn't go out of business before I land.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Maybe it's time for another New Deal
I do have some thoughts on this Palin email hacking debacle, as well as a growing concern that legislative subpoenas (e.g., Rove, Palin's husband) have absolutely zero power, which seems troubling. In the meantime, however, I will simply comment on the recent financial whiplash experienced by our economy. I wrote this after the second 400-point crash on Wednesday, so it's a little dated at this point given that the SEC has finally stepped up and started to regulate short selling, which I remain convinced is part of this mess. I'm just glad I have a job and hopefully I still will have one in six months.
Two points merit brief discussion. The first is this Wall Street mess. The second is the government's intervention to fix it. Like Ben Stein, I agree that taxes are going to have to be raised (likely against those who make the most money) now is not the time to cut corporate taxes. See Ben Stein, How to Ruin the United States of America. Cf. McCain on Financial Markets (stating at a Sept. 19 press conference that "Business taxes will be cut from the second highest in the world at 35 percent to 25 percent"). I disagree that the economy will be stimulated by tax cuts for 95% of Americans because while 95% may see some sort of tax relief, much less than that will actually notice any difference, assuming it passes. See Fact Check: Obama Wants to Raise Taxes; Obama and Taxes. Cf. ObamaTaxCut.com (unexplained and quick and dirty method of estimating taxable income; not sure I would put any stock in this one, but it's something).
Thus, with a lot of talk and no real substance, we are left with a nearly trillion dollar deficit and nobody wanting to contribute toward it. Wake up. Taxes are going up regardless of who the president is. The only question is how far down the small business chain those tax increases will travel (which I would guess, not very far). Once we cut out the puffery, the question is whether there is any candidate who is simply going to tell the country that things are bad, people are going to have to suck it up for a little while, and together with our economic allies, the federal government (and state governments) are going to turn this economy around, and then explain how they are going to do it. Unlikely, but one can hope.
Really, I would like to see one of the candidates step up and simply say that they are going to hold Wall Street accountable for any criminal actions that may have led to this historic collapse and people are going to go to jail. That's what I want to hear. Whether it happens or not is besides the point. I just want some reassurance that the economy is not going to fold up into a new great depression. The last thing we need is hyperinflation. In the end, it's really President Bush's job to announce via a national address, but that's probably not going to happen. Hopefully one of the candidates will do so instead.
Second, this concept of government bailout of private business is appalling. Granted, perhaps government intervention is the only way that this problem could have been alleviated, and that is a good thing. See Jim Cramer, The AIG Save Puts Us on Better Footing. With our national debt through the roof, how many other business (e.g., auto industry, airline industry) going to turn to the government to bail them out of their failed business strategy? To this, I would like the candidates to address how the federal government plans on restructioning these newly acquired assets in order for them to be successful.
Granted, the government seems to on the verge of resurrecting a parallel to the taxpayer-funded bailout of the savings and loan crisis, and this may help. See Paulson, Bernanke Seek Support for an Agency to Buy Bad Debt. So will help from foreign investors. While the markets may have rebounded, there remains questions of whether this is just temporary or have we actually hit the bottom? Time will tell. If only one of the candidates to step up and say it's time for a New Deal.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Berg v Obama citizenship TRO lawsuit
Someone asked me whether I had heard about this lawsuit over Sen. Obama's citizenship. I told him I hadn't, but that it was unlikely to go anywhere in any court for lack of standing. Because this news story has some legal crossover, however, I figured I would get a more informed opinion over it. After sifting through about 10,000 pages of drivel from both the left and the right (and some funny legal ones from Above the law), I have been able to conclude that this lawsuit has not gotten very far, and in short order, will be dismissed.
From what I can tell, Philip Berg is an attorney in Pennsylvania who is bringing this action pro se against Sen. Obama. (Above the Law nominated Berg for lawyer of the day on August 25). See generally Below the Beltway: And That, It Would Seem Is That (discussing this suit and linking to other similar citizenship lawsuit challenges); Mystery solved*: Barack Obama was American-Born (playing on the conspiracy theorists attacking both parties). I have found a copy of the complaint here, but was unable to access it through the Eastern District of Pennsylvania website. At least according to that document, the case number is 08cv4083, and is captioned Philip J. Berg, Esquire v. Barack Hussein Obama, et al.
The complaint, among other things, seeks injunctive relief to prevent Sen. Obama from running based on his alleged non-citizenship. He also brings suit against the DNC for essentially failing to do the same thing as him. Curiously, the complaint references many internet allegations (and Wikipedia), but nothing actually concrete. I'll reserve comment on the merits, and instead focus on two problems, which will likely result in its dismissal.
First, the timing issue. He's been running for months, so the thought that there is a pressing need to act now, where no one has acted before, would lead most lawyers to the conclusion that a restraining order (and particularly an emergency injunction) is probably a loser.
Regarding the rest of the claims, I would imagine the entire complaint is going to be dismissed for lack of standing, particularly since the complaint does not address standing in any form. The question becomes (to me anyway), who would have standing to bring a claim against someone running for president? I think the answer is that there is only one person, the current president. Maybe there are others (DNC national committee chair, another party's nominee), but an ordinary citizen is, in all likelihood, not one of them. The remaining question is whether this lawsuit is frivolous enough to merit sanctions.
As it currently stands, however, it seems that the case was delayed pending service of process. See Motion denied in Obama lawsuit. That article indicates that the senator has been served, so I would imagine the actual dismissal can follow in short order, followed by the standard request for costs.
I may post the link to an article based on the court's response, but I doubt I will devote much, if any, more time on this topic. Assuming it gets dismissed, I'll be curious to see how much more time and money gets wasted on trying to appeal it. Cf. Philadelphia Attorney Phil Berg Demands Disbarment of (3) U.S. Supreme Court Justices. If only Jonathan Lee Riches would file a complaint out of this one.
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Soon off to vacation, but first, a comment equating Gov. Palin to the Miers selection choice
I am not going to wade into these political waters at this time, mainly because I am going to get away for awhile and will be away from the internet. But with John McCain's selection of relatively novice governor Sarah Palin, it instantly reminded me of when President Bush selected White House counsel Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. With that seemingly political mood turning the entire process into a judicial death knell for her nomination, I can only wonder outloud if this selection will have the same result, only without the ability for her name to be withdrawn.
Others have written about this connection as well. See Sarah Palin is not Harriet Miers; Don't Call her 'Harriet'; Sarah Palin is the New Harriet Miers; Palin: Dangerously unqualified for VP. Now, I have only glanced over these articles, and a search for harriet miers and sarah palin yields over 28,000 webpages and 454 blog entries, so it certainly has to be on the Republican party leaders' minds whether this choice (or gamble, if you will) is going to pay off. My point is, if you are equating the vice presidential choice as a gamble, doesn't that say something about the choice itself?
There are several rumors circulating about Gov. Palin, which I am not going to discuss here without investigating them first. Stay tuned.
Read more!
Monday, August 25, 2008
One week to go in clerkship
I have only a few things left to do on my list of things that need to be done by Thursday or Friday, so it certainly continues to be busy as I get things ready for my replacement. And with Biden getting the surprise (sort of) nod for vice president, the news has been filled with plenty of things to keep me busy.
I'll only write briefly on an article that was on Above the Law the other day regarding Obama's economic plan. See The Obama Tax Plan. I always laugh at the comments people post on above the law (to the extent I even read them anymore), and my only comment regarding this particular article is the disclaimer at the end regarding the author: "Disclaimer / Disclosure: Since April, five weeks after I wrote the original ATL pieces, I have been doing unpaid volunteer work conducting research and interviews and writing memos for an adviser to the McCain campaign. I do not speak for the McCain campaign or for my day job employer."
Isn't it sort of funny that even ATL has succumbed to letting everyone chime in on the effects of a hypothetical tax plan that effects only a fraction of the population? Granted, I'm going to be in this tax bracket very soon as well, and admittedly haven't crunched the numbers myself, but give me a break. I have things to say about all of this, but no time to say them. Maybe someone will point out something I'm missing or not paying enough attention to with regard to these competing economic policies, which, to me anyway, seem fairly similar on the bottom line.
Back to work.
Read more!
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Less than two weeks to go, and probably less if i use the last of my vacation time
It has been incredibly busy, which I still think is kind of odd, but mainly because I have been trapped with the school mentality that August is the end of summer where everything is comfortably slow, and I guess I'm just going to have to get used to the fact that the answer is "not necessarily."
I am certainly looking forward to getting this clerkship bonus, which should help cover some upcoming travel plans. In the meantime, I need to finalize my fantasy football draft and see if can improve again from last year's paltry finish. I can tell you one person that I won't be drafting this year, and that is Shaun Alexander.
And has anyone else noticed that the price of gas has dropped without anything fundamental changing besides consumer supply and demand? Interesting indeed. I do love how quickly the news has jumped from the headlines of "oil could be $300/barrel" or "pickens plan estimates oil to hit $200 by december" to "oil could be $65 by the end of the month" and other estimates which basically demonstrate without ambiguity that nobody understands this mess. At least in a couple months I will not have to worry so much about that particular expense.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Right to privacy and strict constructionism
Sadly, I am doing work on a Saturday night with two weeks to go in the clerkship. In the background, I am listening to Pastor Rick Warren attempt to grill the candidates on various "hot button issues" at the Saddleback Civil Forum. See Obama and McCain Try to Woo Conservative Voters at Forum; McCain and Obama cite moral failures; O.C. Matchup Between Obama and McCain is a Prelude to Debates. There will be plenty of news on this that will continue to monopolize the news.
My point is with this, and this is a technical legal point. Maybe someone can enlighten me on how to reconcile it. The debate over the "right to privacy" appears to have settled into some sort of acceptance that it is part of the penumbra of rights contained in the bill of rights. From a strict constructionist perspective, however, the "right to privacy" is not in the constitution. So, how can you be for both without being fundamentally at odds?
I haven't given this much thought, and perhaps they can be reconciled, but this always seems to come up in the judicial nomination debate. I remain convinced that the general american public, and probably a significant portion of the legal profession, has no understanding of the politics that goes into this process. Nor do I think that most people (lawyers included) actually understand the nuances of strict constructionism versus the constitution as a "living, breathing document." In the end, the debate is pretty academic, but I cringe whenever I hear a non-lawyer (such as John McCain) or even a lawyer (such as Barack Obama) attempt to dumb it down for the general public.
Is there a solution to my legal conundrum or is it simply one for the academics and pundits to debate over?
Read more!
Olympic glory
Despite what I said earlier regarding the Olympics, and the various oddities that have emerged with the coverage (the lipsynching girl, the children used in the opening ceremony, the potentially forged passports of the gymnasts, among others), I have been watching most of the events at night, which has been taking a surprising amount of time. After watching Phelps's .01 second victory for gold number 7, I will be watching him go for the record 8th gold medal tonight, and I hope he gets it.
Read more!
Thursday, August 07, 2008
The site that purports to invite people to litigate
There are so many more pressing issues to write about, but I wanted to take a few minutes and write about this "who can you sue" website that has been over the news lately. I may have written about this idea earlier in the year, but my point with this report and "service" is more in what it does than what it does not. See Who Can You Sue? Click Here.
The concept of using this website to see if you have a worthwhile legal claim is a little more detailed than it seems to be, and something more than just a simple referral site. The article suggests that legal advice is actually given over the internet: "Wolfe maintains his service could just as easily help someone realize he doesn't have a case — or that, while they may have a legal claim, it won't generate enough money to interest an attorney to take it on." While it then decides to refer the "client" to someone in their jurisdiction, I just wonder about the unauthorized practice of law implications this site subjects itself to.
Then again, the site probably self-selects its target market (or the target market is self-selecting). I just wonder how many dopes are going to be roped into giving this site money to find out that they really don't have a case. I also wonder how many dopes are going to be led into thinking they have a suit, before an attorney from whatever jurisdiction they are referred to says otherwise. I tend to agree with attorney Richard Sharpstein's sentiments: "Our country's courts are clogged with unnecessary and frivolous lawsuits which delay, if not obstruct, the access to courts of people that really need to get there, that have serious legal grievances." I do acknowledge Prof. Lidsky's point that it is another potentially effective internet tool. Then again, they said the same thing about blogging, and look at all the white noise that has been created by that concept.
In the end, if you're foolish enough to check out a website instead of a local attorney, who probably could tell you a much better answer for the same price if not less, you deserve to have your money taken. Obviously if you have a case, you shouldn't need a website to tell you so. The close of the article makes the best point: "However, if you're looking to use the website to find a good lawyer, in most states you could do just as well by checking with the local bar association. In Florida, for example, lawyers can sign up for the state bar's referral system by paying a $125 membership fee, agreeing to charge clients only $25 for an initial 30-minute office consultation and guaranteeing $100,000 in liability insurance coverage."
Read more!
Tuesday, August 05, 2008
Less than a month of the clerkship to go
With what little time I have left in my clerkship, I must confess that I am going to miss it. I certainly recommend it to anyone, and I believe it's reasonable to assume that anyone who took a clerkship would agree that it's a wonderful experience. I've written about clerking a few times over the past few months, so here are some more thoughts about it.
I could write many things about it, and perhaps I will write more over the next month and between the time I start the new job, but I'll hit on the high points since now is the time people are probably getting their applications together to apply for clerkships to begin in fall 2009.
Over the course of your clerkship, and hopefully early on, you (the clerk) will start to get a feel for your judge and the way cases are handled in your court. The workload probably accelerates this effort. I found the best way to learn the writing style of the court (and more importantly, the judge) was to read carefully other opinions that had been written in whatever area I was covering. Not only did that give me a good idea for the law, it gave me a good idea of what facts were considered important and how they were presented.
After a dozen or so cases and probably as many weeks, you should become more comfortable in spotting the underlying issues that are really being debated within whatever area of the law is. This is usually more clear in criminal cases, since there are 50 state jurisdictions and over a dozen circuits (plus a supreme court) that have probably already answered the question, albeit perhaps in different ways. I was always pleasantly surprised when I saw a brief intelligently cite to how other jurisdictions or circuits have resolved or handled various issues, and obviously my role as a clerk was to attempt to synthesize them into some workable and easily read format.
After eleven months of dealing with various criminal issues, I am certain I can put together a brief that would either affirm or reverse any criminal conviction (depending on what side I am on), or at least cause the court some pause in going with the other side. (This last comment is a joke).
At the halfway mark, you should be able to spot whatever issue and gauge relatively quickly the merits of the case. Given the volume, you probably have already learned this, and if you've set your RSS feed to whatever decision the US Supreme Court (or your fellow clerks) have written, you should be well aware that current issues always crop up pretty quickly in unforeseen ways. At the very least, if you have the opportunity to analyze some newly created precedent (good or bad), why not use it?
By the end, however, you'll probably be pretty anxious to get started on learning the ropes at a job where your role is less of a neutral arbiter and more of an advocate. Chances are a lot of your habits will carry over, and you've gained a perspective that is valuable to whatever firm you've decided to go with. You'll also be pretty used to the government hours, and I would venture to say that it's fair to assume that's one nicety you won't be able to take with you.
I'm sure I have some other thoughts rolling around in my head about this, but that's enough for now. If any other clerk has something to add, feel free to comment away. I'll save thoughts on the clerkship bonus, some updated application thoughts, and what not for another day.