Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!

It looks like the incumbents are doing a fantastic job of torpedoing America's confidence in the federal government. From CNN:

A majority of Americans think the federal government poses a threat to rights of Americans, according to a new national poll.

Fifty-six percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Friday say they think the federal government's become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens. Forty-four percent of those polled disagree.

Of course, there is a bit of partisanship in these number:

The survey indicates a partisan divide on the question: only 37 percent of Democrats, 63 percent of Independents and nearly 7 in 10 Republicans say the federal government poses a threat to the rights of Americans.

Regardless of your political affiliation, however, one feeling is constant throughout the political spectrum:

. . . Americans overwhelmingly think that the U.S. government is broken . . .

Americans tend to get into a revolutionary spirit when they believe their liberty is under siege. Does this mean a drastic shakeup of the federal government is on the horizon? A power shift back to the states? Only time will tell, but times of crisis tend to yield the greatest changes in our system of government.

FOLLOW-UP: Rasmussen Reports polling data shows that only 21 percent of voters believe the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed.

Digital GW Shorts

So, it's that time of year when Law Revue shows are live. A tipster sent us this video from GW's 2010 show, and we couldn't resist posting it. Enjoy.

Obama Will Nominate Berkeley Law Professor to 9th Circuit

From the L.A. Times:

President Obama will nominate UC Berkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday. . . .

Liu carries credentials that some conservatives love to hate -- including a leadership position in a progressive legal group and a record of opposing the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

But he has conservative admirers too. Liu has supported school choice as a solution to problems in urban education, and has served as faculty advisor to the California College Preparatory Academy, a public charter school. He came to the White House's attention with the recommendation of some conservatives.

If confirmed, he could be the only full-time Asian American judge on a federal appellate court. A senior administration official revealed his nomination on condition of anonymity.

I'm sure Fed Courts professors everywhere are ecstatic.

NCAA Brings the "House" Down on Rodriguez, Michigan

The NCAA initiated a letter detailing five general allegations of violations against the Michigan football program. Adam Rittenberg at ESPN summarizes the allegations:

Bad Year in Legal Employment

The National Law Journal issued its annual Go-To Law School List, and the results reek of the recession. Even the top schools placed little more than half of their respective graduating classes into NLJ 250 firms. The top 10 law schools this year in terms of total percentage of the class placed:

1. Northwestern -- 55.9%

2. Columbia -- 54.4%

3. Stanford -- 54.1%

4. Chicago -- 53.1%

5. Virginia -- 52.8%

6. Michigan -- 51%

7. Penn -- 50.8%

8. NYU -- 50.1%

9. Berkeley -- 50%

10. Duke -- 49.8%

Obviously, schools like Harvard (47.6%) and Yale (35.3%) had smaller numbers because graduates of those schools tend to pursue the clerkship and academia routes more heavily. Check out the full rankings.

Acquisition News

Walgreen is buying out Duane Reade for $618 million in an effort to gain a leading presence in the drugstore industry.

According to the New York Times, "The deal, announced Wednesday, will transform the retailer into one of New York City’s biggest sellers of cosmetics and toothpaste without having to resort to costly real estate purchases."

Read about it here.

Iran and Privacy

Just when you think the Iranian government couldn't get any more benevolent, it seems like it thinks its citizens prefer government-run e-mail instead of g-mail. And it isn't affording a choice in the matter.

Cui Boneheads-- Illinois Machine Keeps Rollin' Crookedly Along.

The Romans were wise; when looking at issues, they stressed the need to discern "Cui Bono?" or "To Who's Benefit?" Whenever I read news about the Illinois political landscape, my brain literally screams "Cui Bono, bro?" (my inner mind has a touch of the Jerz, I guess). I mean, Illinois is the land of the criminal governor; the home of 28 convicted Chicago aldermen. The list of crookedness can go on...and on... and on.

So, I was not surprised when I read that Illinois Speaker Mike Madigan proposed doing away with the office of Lieutenant Governor in a Constitutional amendment. "Why weren't you surprised?" you ask. Well, because I knew (after a brief refresher) that the elimination of the Lieutenant Governor's office would result in the Attorney General becoming the first in line of Gubernatorial succession. No big deal, right? Wrong-- Lil Mikey's daughter just so happens to be the current Attorney General. And, she is running pretty much unopposed for another term (and will continue to run unopposed for the foreseeable future).

This leads me to wonder: what dirt do the Mad Madigans have on Patrick Quinn and/or his Republican competitors?

Illinois-- the Land of Political Creepin'.

California Love: L.A. County Faces Erosion of Middle Class

Good news keeps pouring in. . . . LA Times

A New Approach to Anti-Abortion Ads

In Atlanta, pro life supporters are putting a new spin on their ads by reaching out to minorities. Their billboards read, "Black children are an endangered species." The New York Times reports that these groups see abortion as a tool for racists who effectively want to exterminate the African American population. Yet, census data shows that the fertility rate among African American women remains higher than the national average. I would hope that pro choice proponents at least respect the fact that certain people believe life begins at conception. However, it seems that bringing racism into it is an extreme and unwarranted attempt by anti-abortion advocates to gain more support.

University fundraising falls 12 percent over last year

From the Washington Post

Life as a Lawyer...

For those considering law school, be careful to remember that e-mails like these pop into your inbox from time to time once you take the plunge! Of course, your mileage may vary...

Senator Kerry's Quest to Amend the Constitution

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission should be stale news to you by now. The new debate is how the disappointed executive and legislative branches will react to the judiciary's (alleged) overreaching.

Senator Kerry suggests starting at the source: amend the constitution. From the Huffington Post:

At a hearing on Tuesday, Kerry said that in the short term he wanted Congress to quickly pass countermeasures that would require corporations to get shareholder approval for political spending and prohibit spending by domestic subsidiaries of foreign corporations and government contractors.

'But we may also need to think bigger,' Kerry said. 'I think we need a constitutional amendment to make it clear once and for all that corporations do not have the same free speech rights as individuals.'

While, undoubtedly, Justice Scalia would be proud of Senator Kerry for actually changing the constitution's text to effect a change in its meaning, I can't imagine a bigger third-rail for the Senior Senator than running on a platform of "let's fix the first amendment."

More likely than not, Citizens United will be somewhat curtailed by a more mundane act of Congress. Proposals have ranged from requiring shareholder approval of any corporate campaign spending to preventing corporations from listing on exchanges if they fund campaign speech. Whether such an act will withstand the scrutiny of SCOTUS' all seeing eyes is another question (but commentators seem to say no).

So we may be in for a show. Hopefully the 28th Amendment will be a little more spicy than the underwhelming 27th Amendment.

Historic Redline - Early Draft of U.S. Constitution Found in Philadelphia

Historians in Philadelphia were perusing some of the more than 21 million documents in the Historical Society of Philadelphia's collection when they stumbled upon what appeared to be an original draft of the U.S. Constitution. From the Inquirer Journal:

Researcher Lorianne Updike Toler was intrigued by the centuries-old document at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. On the back of a treasured draft of the U.S. Constitution was a truncated version of the same document, starting with the familiar words: "We The People. . . ."

Battle of the Sexes: Law School Edition

One of our readers recently made a comment about needing more estrogen on the blog, and that comment provoked a few thoughts that I've been internally debating for almost three years now. Female law students vs. male law students: where do the differences stem from and how much of it is just gender stereotyping?

President Obama Gets Involved in College Football

Two days after the State of the Union. . . . Thanks, I guess. ESPN.

A Question of "Degree?"

We can all agree that law school is a costly proposition. But what are we paying for? The degree, the education or some combination of the two? Recently, this question has been the source of much debate amongst my fellow classmates who, like many of us, battle  their conscience over whether to take a perceived "soft" course that seems interesting over a "hard" course that will, as the argument goes, be more valuable in the real world. Presented with this dichotomy, the wise thing to do is to choose the latter; it's hard to argue with choices that will help one in their career. The question, however, may not be as simple as I described it.

As far as I can tell, law school's pedagogical method is not--and has never been--focused on helping prepare students for the specific legal problems they'll face in their careers. Rather, the objective is to provide students with a broad framework for resolving issues that will ultimately be confronted in practice. Whether shirking pragmatism in this manner is sensible is subject to debate from students and faculty alike, but it is a reality. And a reality that makes it less likely that any substantive law learned will ever be more helpful in the workforce than a brief survey of caselaw. (After all, professors have different emphases and the law has this pesky tendency to change.)

Given that, I'm inclined to think it really doesn't matter all that much. But if it does, I suppose there's a second question worth considering: why offer the supposed "soft" courses at all? Thoughts?

Student Loan Reform

The Obama administration has proposed a solution to the student debt fiasco. From Yahoo News:

Obama will also call for caps on some student loans, limiting a borrower's payments to 10 percent of his or her income, and forgiving all remaining debt after 10 years of payment for those in public service work — and 20 years for all others.

This cap and forgiveness program is similar to the student loan program in the UK. The model helps reduce some of the asymmetries associated with student loan debt (really easy to obtain, hard to predict rate of return, and almost impossible ability to discharge) by ensuring there is a finish line to the loan race and by encouraging people to obtain higher education.

I fully support such a system. Education, particularly legal education, is a huge financial gamble. The current student loan system relentlessly punishes those who lose the bet until the day they die. This alternative model better helps apportion the risk of obtaining an education. While the individual who ultimately receives the education gets the most benefit (and correspondingly, should pay for that benefit), there is a huge societal interest in educating the masses. Because both the State and the student benefit, they should rightly split some of the risk/cost. Simply loading the debt onto the student without the possibility of discharge ensures that such a student will be held back financially for the rest of his life (hard to get credit if you can't pay your $3500 a month student loans).

This is a sensible solution. Let's hope it goes somewhere.

What's in a Name?

"Transgender" has become a broad term that applies to people who identify and/or express themselves with a gender other than their birth sex. Currently, there is no federal law explicitly prohibiting discrimination against transgender people in employment, housing, public accommodations or any other area of law. However, states are taking baby steps, beginning with New York, which has become a leader in recognizing name changes that transfer across sexes. Overcoming issues such as requiring a doctor's note for a transgender to get a name change and publicizing all name changes in a newspaper, which would provoke safety problems for those in gender transition, Manhattan courts are slowly paving the way for these individuals to begin settling into their new identities.

Read about it here.

Predicting the Future: Is it a Proper Role for the Supreme Court?

Adam Liptak wrote a fascinating article in today's New York Times regarding the habit of Supreme Court Justices to predict the future based on the resolution of the cases the Court adjudges. Principally, Liptak opines that "The Supreme Court’s main strength lies in adjudicating disputes based on things that have already happened. It is less good at predicting the future." Indeed, prescient--and in many cases, dire--predictions can often be found scattered about important dissents. Liptak illustrates this phenomenon:

When the court first ruled in June that prosecutors may not submit reports from such labs without accompanying testimony, the four dissenting justices warned that the decision would impose a “crushing burden” on prosecutors. Several of them repeated that point Monday.

“I don’t know except anecdotally,” Justice Stephen G. Breyer said, “but Massachusetts seems to be having huge problems.” That depends on whom you talk to. The chief trial counsel of the district attorney’s office in Boston, which handles about half of the state’s drug cases, told a symposium at the New England School of Law in November that “the sky is not falling.”

“Despite the dire predictions,” the prosecutor, Patrick M. Haggan, said, “defendants have not walked free. In the vast majority of cases where we have been required to produce the analyst’s live testimony, we’ve had that analyst there.”

These predictions are often more than mere rhetorical jabs waged by a disgruntled dissenter; they are sometimes found in majority opinions. As Liptak notes:

Poor predictions are not confined to dissents. Writing for eight justices in Clinton v. Jones, the 1997 decision allowing a sexual harassment case against President Bill Clinton to move forward, Justice John Paul Stevens confidently asserted that “it appears to us highly unlikely to occupy any substantial amount” of Mr. Clinton’s time. The aftermath of the decision dominated much of Mr. Clinton’s second term.

Given this, one wonders why the Justices even bother--particularly given the justiciability concerns such predictions evoke (to the extent the predictions relate to future legal issues that are not before the Court).