May 2009 Archives

Jeffrey Rosen takes to the pages of the Times Sunday Magazine to explore the notion of what it means to be a Liberal Justice these days:

Obama's ideological elusiveness has perplexed liberal and conservative court watchers alike. Critics may see his ambiguity as just another example of his instincts to swaddle ideological divisions in the soothing rhetoric of bipartisanship and compromise, to reconcile the irreconcilable. Obama, however, may be looking to synthesize and transcend the established legal categories -- articulating a genuinely new vision for what it means to be a liberal justice in the 21st century.

OK, so you hate the "quote" about the Circuit Court being the place where law is made. Yes, there's video.  Your more fair minded friends might benefit from watching more of it than they're showing on TV.  The whole thing can be found here, start at about the 40 minute mark for some context.  

The folks over at Above the Law have been doing yeoman's work keeping up with all the big law firm cutbacks, layoffs, branch closings, and cost saving policy changes.  My very favorite cost cutting measure of late is the attempt to reign in "summer associate lunches". For those of you not familiar with this summer ritual, big firms hire law students to work for the summer for obscene amounts of money.  One of the job perks (aside from getting paid more in three months than a public school teacher sees in a year), was getting taken out to copious expense account lunches.  This is done in the name of getting to know the summer associates and to give the summer associates the impression that Big Firm is a wonderful, generous place to work, and that they should take a job there after graduation. In these hard economic times, however, the gravy train can't go on like it has.  Those poor summers are going to have to make do with less.  At Simpson Thacher and Bartlett, for example, the pitiable law students will be limited to one free lunch per week, with a cap of $65 per lunch per person (yes, you read that correctly, per person).  Sad, right?

Just in case you missed it:

Short version: This is a big deal, I've thought a lot about it. She's really smart , she recognizes that a Judge's job is to interpret the law, not make it, she has broad extensive legal experience, and she didn't grow up with a silver spoon.

Chief Justice John Roberts is profiled by Jeffrey Toobin in the latest issue of the New Yorker. Here's a taste:

In every major case since he became the nation's seventeenth Chief Justice,
Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the
condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate
defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has
embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme
Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the
contemporary Republican Party.

Sigh. More here: "No More Mr. Nice Guy: The Supreme Court's Stealth Hard-liner"

Fordham Law professor Joel Reidenberg was looking for a way to demonstrate to his class how easy it is to gather personal information on the Internet.  So, he gave them an assignment: collect as much information as possible about Joel Reidenberg. Enter Justice Antonin Scalia. In public comments, Scalia said the following:

Discussions of privacy rights in the digital era should distinguish between such confidential data as medical records and information that might be personal but is easy to find out, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Wednesday.

Considering every fact about someone's life private is "extraordinary," he said, noting that data such as addresses have long been discernible, even if technology has made them easier to find.

"Every single datum about my life is private? That's silly," Scalia [said.

I stand by my remark at the Institute of American and Talmudic Law conference that it is silly to think that every single datum about my life is private. I was referring, of course, to whether every single datum about my life deserves privacy protection in law.It is not a rare phenomenon that what is legal may also be quite irresponsible. That appears in the First Amendment context all the time.

What can be said often should not be said. Prof. Reidenberg's exercise is an example of perfectly legal, abominably poor judgment. Since he was not teaching a course in judgment, I presume he felt no responsibility to display any. 

And while those mundane, single pieces of "datum" are seemingly inconsequential in isolation, access to them can lead to devastating invasion of privacy consequences in this brave new world where everything is online (see, e.g., Palin's email breach, or if you prefer something more pop-culturey, Salma Hayek's email breach).  Even so, in Scalia's ideal world, all that stands between your private information and the world is the hypothetical good judgment of a bunch of law students.

First, let me say that I do not believe in shirking jury duty. It is one of the most important civic duties we have as Americans, second only to voting. That being said, here are two tips to avoid service:

1. Know A Lawyer. As JerryT recently discovered, knowing a lawyer on the case will prevent you from answering questions and get you out of there fast.

2. If you can't stand of thought of hanging out with a lawyer, make sure you have a good hardship excuse. Erik Slye of Montana did just that with this impressive screed:

Apparently you didn't understand me the first time. I CANNOT take time off from work. I'm not putting my family's well-being at stake to participate in this crap. I don't believe in our "justice" system and I don't want to have a goddamn thing to do with it. Jury duty is a complete waste of time. I would rather count the wrinkles on my dog's balls than sit on a jury. Get it through your thick skulls. Leave me the f__k alone.

While Mr. Slye was threatened with jail, he was let out of service.