Having watched the news in the background to some briefing I feel compelled to work on, I am surprised by the number of people who can speak intelligently in such stark contrast to the Supreme Court's gun ban decision, which came out a mere twelve hours ago. The decision is 157 pages! If it took the justices nearly four months to write it, how can anyone who hasn't devoted their entire day (as a lawyer) to reading it, possibly be able to speak with any more than a gut reaction? It simply leads me to think that maybe there is some truth to the idea that all of the media has simply sunk to the level of accepting uninformed musings from the left and right in a not-so-veiled effort to pander to whatever media market is currently in demand.
So, I decided to take a look at the resumes of the talking heads. I know Sen. McCain is not a lawyer, and Sen. Obama is, and interestingly, McCain explained how that was a great legal decision and Roe v. Wade was one of the worst, so I'll leave those comments for what they are worth. Obama is still figuring out how to disagree with it, although given that he is a self-proclaimed "constitutional scholar," he will have to concede that by a 5-4 decision, the second amendment says whatever the majority says it is. I'll reconcile all of this with the idea of a "living constitution" once I can figure out if it's even possible. But neither McCain nor Obama are running the media, so let's just look at the anchors facing the nation.
I'm simply pointing out high school graduation and college/grad degree, and relevance, if any. Feel free to correct me if I have been misled. I'm not going to comment on anything in particular except to mention that I usually watch the first segment or two of the O'Reilly Factor and parts of Anderson 360 (sometimes, and I usually flip to see if David Gergen or Juan Williams is on). Between the two of them, at least I feel that I am balanced out toward the middle. Most of the college degrees are in journalism/broadcast fields or they had some broadcast experience through radio or mixed media while in college (as one would expect).
Bill O'Reilly - college degree; masters in journalism from BU (which is one of the top programs in the country by the way).
Sean Hannity. High school grad and college dropout.
Alan Colmes - college degree.
Greta Van Susteren - college degree in economics; law degree from Georgetown
Chris Matthews - college degree
Keith Olberman - college degree.
Dan Abrams - college degree from Duke and law degree from Columbia
Lou Dobbs - college degree from Harvard
Larry King - high school grad.
Wolf Blitzer - college degree and masters in international relations from Hopkins
Anderson (Yes, I remember you were on Channel One) Cooper - college degree from Yale
And, to round it out: Nancy Grace - college degree, law degree from Walter F. George School of Law at Mercer University, masters in constitutional and criminal law from NYU.
Now, of two of the lawyers who have shows (Abrams and Grace), I have been impressed with neither and now that I've discovered that Abrams is a lawyer, I would question where he comes up with some of his legal analysis, since it seems pretty cursory at best. I haven't watched enough of Greta Van Susteren to form an opinion about it one way or the other (although from what I have seen, it seems more informed and less aggressive than Verdict). I rarely even keep on Nancy Grace's show more than a couple seconds, although I did notice that she put up the address of the Texas Supreme Court when their polygamy decision came down and encouraged her viewers to contact them and complain. Yeah, that will work.
My point to all of this is merely to say that without Tim Russert (college degree and law degree from Cleveland-Marshall College of Law at Cleveland State University), there seems to be some room at the head of these networks for a pundit with a law degree who at least uses it productively. I liked Tim Russert's show and was saddened by his sudden death.
In sum, the fact that most of these broadcasters post-Russert are able to espouse their reasoning as to why such and so legal case was correctly or incorrectly decided, particularly when the odds of them having read through 157 pages as a lawyer would, is just funny. I am a lawyer and wouldn't give an opinion on television about it before actually sitting down for a couple hours and reading through the case. (My other comments today are uninformed at best, but the point of those entries wasn't to provide any legal analysis or opinion on them either). (I also must give some credit to Professor Bainbridge for making a similar point a few years ago when asked to comment on the Disney case when it came out). The fact that they have an audience that hangs on their words and forms an opinion based on their non-legal analysis, however, is not. Am I wrong in being jaded about this? Post away a counterpoint.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Pundits with Law degrees - there are only two!
Locks, Stocks, and Two Smoking Barrels
Between guns and oil/stocks, today was a pretty impressive day. I have only begun to wade through this gargantuan opinion, and will likely just skim it because it is unlikely that I will be working on anything over the next two months that will be affected by this ruling (one would hope). Surprisingly (and yet, not very surprisingly), my 5-4 prediction came true. The opinion for DC v. Heller can be found on SCOTUS's site. See also High Court Strikes Down Gun Ban; Heller Discussion Board (SCOTUS Blog): "Clarity is in the Eye of the Beholder"; Scotus initial entry.
I haven't thought much about this case other than I think the majority got it right in principle, although I haven't sifted through the reasoning yet to determine whether I agree or not. And of course, the line about being able to dial the police in one hand with the gun pointed at the robber in the other is funny, and something I remember in a Bugs Bunny cartoon from when I was a kid. If I was a criminal defense attorney, notwithstanding the line about felons, I would be reading this opinion carefully and start raising challenges regarding every weapons offense my client was charged with. If I was a prosecutor, I would start boning up on this law since it's going to provide fodder across the board for years to come. And you thought Crawford caused a big mess for the courts to sort out.
I will say that my cursory glance of the opinion makes me wonder that if they have now read "self-defense" into the second amendment, can they still argue that this "right to privacy" should not have been read into the bill of rights in general? And I'll assume, for now, that this opinion is not a template for statutory construction. If anyone has any thoughts on these two points, feel free to chime in and point out whether my suspicions are grounded in fact or mere speculation. I'll read through the opinion myself soon enough and determine if there is anything worth contributing to the academic discourse beyond these minor blips on the blogging scale.
Beyond this smoking gun, the other big news today was the stock shock that sent the markets tumbling toward yet another devastating day. Even for those clerks going on to big firms in big cities, shouldn't the fact that so many aspects of our economy are tied to the stock market raise some eyebrows? This is a big problem that I try not to think about, but when it starts to mess with my long-term finances, it makes whoever's economic policy is opposite that of whatever got us into this mess worth looking into a little more. I just hope the market doesn't tank any more than it already has over the last six months, but I'm not holding my breath either. I should just liquidate and cut my losses now.
DC Gun ban/second amendment case out shortly
As the world will soon find out, the so-called "DC Gun ban case" is due out today. See SCOTUS; Washington Post Supreme Court Blog. I, for one, am interested to see how it will be reconciled within the strict constructionist theory. Some initial (and incomplete) thoughts were posted in March.
I'm currently of the mindset that strict construction would not make sense given the fact that everybody had guns back then, and the literal reading of the text "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" may suggest that the clause "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" applies only to the Militia, which in turn is controlled by the State. Since that is certainly an unpopular meaning that would effectively vitiate the individual right, it will be interesting to see how what I am sure should be a 9-0 decision with various concurrences (rather than a 5-4 disaster) works it out.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Failing grades blamed on Wikipedia instead of at themselves
According to a recent headline that caught my attention, Failing Exam Passes Blamed on Wikipedia 'Littered with Inaccuracies.'. Without reading anything in the article, I am inclined to think that the online encyclopedia isn't to blame for the bad grades, just the person stupid enough to use it. It's one reason why I'm leary of citing it in any opinion I write (and don't, although I may use it as a starting point for research sometimes), and in the few times I have seen a trial court or brief cite to it, I am especially careful of what they are citing it for, why they chose to cite that instead of a more stable and reputable source, and whether they even needed to do so. While I certainly can appreciate using online sources for research, I think the more careful researcher will find better sources.
I say that if Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, wouldn't it fall into the general category of disfavor? Or were my high school teachers that taught me not to use an encyclopedia as a cite for references wrong?
Either way, I would hardly blame an online resource for getting a bad grade on a test. I would blame the test taker for failing to do more than cursory wikipedia research.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
West should move to a CD/DVD system for its hard copies
Regional reporters sure take up a lot of space, don't they? And in today's cost and affordable prices for both online research services, it seems odd that the regional reporters continue to pump out book after book, practically on a biweekly basis. Here's a thought? Why not put the all the regional reporters on a 1 or 2 DVD set, containing folders of the PDFs? And since most people print from the online systems anyway, you'd probably have as many people copy the DVDs as you would those who copy the books in lieu of printing from online.
I haven't personally priced out a set of say, P, P.2d and whatever they are up to in P.3d, but I'm sure it will take up more room than a 2, 3, or even 4 disc DVD set. Further updates could be shipped as CDs. There's always a concern for shelf life of a DVD/CD compared to a book, but given the amount of dust that has built up on dozens of books that I know have not been opened in more than half a century, I'm sure that's a problem that can be addressed on an as-needed basis. Think about it.
And here is the rest of it. Read more!
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
What's an 8 letter word for what happens when a jury plays sudoko during a trial
This little noticed headline caught my attention earlier today. Apparently, one of the attorneys during a trial noticed a few of the jury members writing vertically instead of horizontally. Notwithstanding how that can be noticed, it turns out that five of the jury had decided that finishing their Sudoku puzzles (and some crossword puzzles) was more important than paying attention to the trial. The incessant scribbling had been previously noticed, but attributed to the jurors paying close attention and keeping good notes during this complex trial. The trial apparently had already cost Australian taxpayers nearly $1 million US.
Result? Not surprisingly, the 66-day trial was declared a mistrial. Apparently they are going to start fresh soon. See Sudoku-Playing Jurors Halt Trial; Trial Aborted Over Sudoku-Playing Jurors; Game Over: Sudoku Spoils a Trial in Australia. I wish this was an appealable issue on a case before me, if only for the humor factor involved.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
A way to change oil prices without reaching into the pockets of big oil and business
I will refrain from publishing my thoughts on the economic policies of Senators McCain and Obama for a little while longer since the jury is still out on which plan is actually productive and which is full of air. In the meantime, permit me to offer an idea into the internet discourse on how the Republicans and Democrats over on Capitol Hill can do something to help out the middle class in this growing gas crisis.
The Senate today rejected this bogus concept of taxing windfall profits on oil companies. See Gas lines, Rationing Scare More Drivers; Senate Republicans Block Bill to Tax Windfall Profits of Oil Companies. Good for the Senate. The government has no business meddling in the affairs of corporate profits any more than they already do.
With the premise that something is rotten in the state of Denmark (and by state of Denmark, I mean big oil companies), I must specify that I am basing this entry on my suspicion that there is some sort of price fixing (in addition to the speculation on oil futures and weak dollar) that is working to drive up the price of a gallon of gas. And, unlike other private or public business, oil is sort of an industry of its own. Notwithstanding the ways the government can check this, taxing "windfall profits" is not the answer.
I think a more reasonable solution would be for the government to use its power under the commerce clause to require all cars (imported and exported) to have a MPG requirement of 40 MPG by 2015 and 60 by 2020. This can be accomplished by the increase in hybrid technology or something else. While this acts as an incentive for the car industry, I think it can be pushed into oil company's financial interests by offering tax incentives for those companies who sponsor significant portions of their profit to the car company's R&D departments. Further incentives to big oil can be given for companies that develop new fuel stations (e.g., hydrogen), energy production stations (e.g., hydroelectric, solar, geothermic, wind), and other facilities that would employ thousands of people around the country.
Will this reduce our dependence on foreign oil? Over time, yes. The problem is that these are long term solutions and the immediate results will not come quickly. Basically, the person that pushes for these big ideas is looking at (in all likelihood) a four-year term. Is this the only solution to the big oil problem? Of course not. But it's the only one I feel like developing on a broader forum at this time. We'll see if it gets picked up by anyone of importance.
I must give some credit to Bill O'Reilly for suggesting this in one of his shows a couple of weeks ago. And some derivation of this idea is floating around in Congress. I'm just expanding it to be a little more realistic. Also, I saw a special on the Aptera last weekend that was pretty neat. See my previous writeup on it here.
Read more!
Sunday, June 08, 2008
New Indiana Jones Movie - mildly entertaining, but not worth the $10
I finally got around to seeing the new Indiana Jones movie this weekend. I had heard from initial reviews that it was okay, and even from a couple of my friends that it was entertaining, and I figured, "hey, it's Indiana Jones, of course I'm going to go see it in the theater." After watching it, I can state unequivocally that Steven Spielberg and George Lucas tested the limits of how much I was willing to suspend my disbelief and continue watching solely because it was Indiana Jones from within the first few minutes of the movie, and by the end, I can state without exaggeration or hyperbole that they succeeded. For my explanation of why each major scene required more and more eye rolling,
Spoilers follow. It's probably easier to simply give this movie a breakdown by scene, which you may think is listed by level of ridiculous, but is chronological. Keep in mind, all of this is ignoring the fact that this movie is about aliens and a psychic warfare plan designed by those pesky 50s commies. I must pay tribute to my friend Keith who had a bit in college that the fourth sequel of any movie takes place in space or has an alien element to it (e.g., Leprechaun 4, Star Wars), although the bit has fallen apart slightly with the latest trend in remaking movies like Rambo and Die Hard.
1. Shortly after his escape from the Russian agents, Indy wonders onto a nuclear testing ground. To escape the pending nuclear detonation, he jumps into a lead lined refrigerator, which happens to be thrown from the blast cite onto the desert ground presumably miles away from radiation and at 700 mph. He survives and steps out in time to see the mushroom cloud balloon into the sunset. Since this is within the first 10 minutes of the movie, I figure, okay, it's Indiana Jones, I'll let it slide. How little did I know.
2. The motorcycle chase through the library. If you saw it, you'll know what I mean when I say this was pretty silly.
3. Using a snake to pull him from quicksand (or whatever he called it).
4. The monkeys scene with the kid. This was about the time my bs meter simply stopped working.
5. The giant ants. One of my friends said that the name of the ants used in the movie actually come from Africa, which sort of gives some credit to earlier rumors that the movie was going to span all seven continents.
6. The aliens in the end. What was the point? The ship got up and sailed away, in a scene that was reminiscent of Close Encounters of the Third Kind or E.T.. Treasure is knowledge? Now I've seen it all. I would put the wedding scene in the end in as well, but by that point, it simply fit in with the theme of the movie. I wouldn't have been surprised if Jar-Jar binks came out to challenge them to a pod race. I also would not have been surprised if Neo came out and said "no."
Other things that were probably more entertaining for kids than adults: the woods chase scene, the big saw blades slicing through the car, the sword fight, the car landing on the branch and then going in the water, and then the branch hitting the people on the cliff, the waterfall, the final scene with hat rolling to his kid, but being picked up by him. I thought that because the last Indiana Jones was 20 years ago, that that may have skewed my perspective somewhat, but figured I would list these points nonetheless.
But the real winner in this movie is Sean Connory. I was a little disappointed when I first heard that he was not going to come out of retirement to reprise his role as Indy's father. After watching the movie, however, I am more convinced that he read through the script and thought, I'm going to sit back and take the check for them using my picture instead.
Overall, the movie is probably worth watching in the comfort of your own home than going to the theater. After all, it is Indiana Jones. But even if you like Indiana Jones and are ambivalent about a sequel and say you'll stomach this new movie, there aren't any giant explosions or anything redeeming about it that makes this movie worth watching in the theater. Compared to the other three, the world (but not one's pockets) would have been just as well off had there not been a sequel, as is often the case.
Movies left that I plan on watching this summer: The Happening, Hancock. I'm sequeled out, so I probably will wait for the new Batman movie until it comes on HBO. I also heard Iron Man was good, but I can wait for that one. Overall, it seems (so far) like a pretty lame movie summer, but who knows what will come out and pique my interest.
Also, there was a trailer for some goofy Brad Pitt movie trailer (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button). Talk about a trailer that you can watch and know exactly the plot from start to finish and make a snap judgment call on why it's not worth watching.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Justice O'Connor lends her name to an online civics program for middle schoolers
Personally, I think this is a great idea. Justice O'Connor is colloborating with James Paul Gee, a professor at Georgetown on Our Courts, "an upcoming online learning program for middle school students." See G4C: Justice O'Connor Talks Our Courts Learning Game; Retired Justice Developing Online Civics Lessons; ASU Law school press release.
Without repeating much of the article or drawing unnecessary attention to the shot against No Child Left Behind, the site essentially provides an additional and relevant source for middle schoolers to see civics. According to the article, "Our Courts will have two components, said O'Connor: a curriculum portion that educators can use, and another part young people can use in their free time to argue and discuss real judicial problems. The need for such a project has become even stronger in recent years, she added, since the No Child Left Behind Act 'squeezed out civics education' from public education."
Overall, I think this sort of collaboration is a great public service and hopefully will inspire others to do the same. I wish I had something like that when I was in middle school (notwithstanding the fact I didn't have the internet back then either).
Monday, June 02, 2008
Fantasy football owners can breath a sigh of relief, for now
As I mentioned last week, there appeared to be some truth to this fantasy sports case being challenged in the federal courts and teed up for the United States Supreme Court to take. The Supreme Court, however, thought otherwise and denied cert in the case. See Court Refuses to Consider Fantasy Baseball Dispute. Consequently, fantasy football leagues can continue as scheduled and the MLB, NFL and other professional sports organizations who seemingly are missing out on a potentially huge revenue stream can fight their battle in another circuit and hope for some sort of split in authority. While we wait indefinitely for that to happen though, Yahoo fantasy football drafts will take place in less than three months. I can't wait!
Read more!
